민수기 31:58의 주석

וידבר ה׳…נקם נקמת בני ישראל G'd said:…"avenge the children of Israel, etc." If the purpose of the word לאמור in verse one was for Moses to tell these instructions to the people why did the Torah not write the plural form, i.e. נקמו נקמתכם instead of writing נקם נקמת? Yalkut Shimoni on our verse says that the word וידבר always refers to "tough talk." Moses began by appeasing G'd concerning his forthcoming death and G'd refused to be appeased in the matter. Moses said to G'd: "why should I die seeing I have witnessed so many miracles, etc.?" G'd was willing to meet Moses half-way saying: "if you want to live on for a number of years the Israelites will not live to see the defeat of their enemies during those years; neither will Midian be conquered by them. After Moses had allowed G'd to convince him that it was better he should die now, G'd in turn found it difficult to issue orders the fulfilment of which would be the cause of Moses' death. It is evident that the author of this Midrash appreciated the problem we have raised. According to his explanation the wording of our verse is justified. The word וידבר which expresses "tough talk," could refer to two kinds of harshness. 1) Moses and his forthcoming death; 2) G'd's feeling about the need to have Moses die and to have imposed this penalty upon him. The word לאמור is an allusion to the words of appeasement G'd had spoken to Moses when he wanted to convince him that his very death would be the greatest service he could render to his people at that time. Alternatively, the word לאמור may refer to everything Moses said to G'd trying to persuade Him not to let him die at this time. G'd's answer was: "avenge the children of Israel, etc."

Kap. 31. V. 1. Bereits oben (Kap. 25, 16) war ausgesprochen, dass die Brechung der midjanitischen Macht eine Notwendigkeit für die Sicherstellung der sittlichen und geistigen Integrität des jüdischen Volkes bilde, weil die Midjaniten fortfuhren, ihre Verführungskünste an Israel zu versuchen. Hier wird nun der Auftrag zur Ausführung des gegen die Midjaniten zu führenden Schlages.

Searching for the plain meaning of these words yields the following result. The reason G'd said to Moses וידבר, i.e. He spoke harshly was to tell him to act with authority when recruiting the soldiers for the campaign. The commandment to punish the Midianites was to be treated with the same degree of seriousness as any of the 613 commandments which were given to the people for all times. The word לאמור, as usual, means to tell the Israelites. In this instance this instruction was especially necessary because seeing that G'd appeared to have given this task to Moses personally by saying נקם instead of נקמו Moses might have thought that this commandment was addressed exclusively to him. This is not as strange as it sounds as Moses was a great hero physically, especially with G'd on his side. If we examine deeds of valour performed by Yonathan son of King Saul and recorded in Samuel I chapter 14, it should not surprise us if G'd had indeed told Moses to avenge the Israelites single- handedly. The reason G'd used the singular although He meant for the Israelites to participate in the campaign is that Moses' approaching death depended on the completion of this campaign first i.e. אחר תאסף לעמך. In view of the fact that this campaign and its timing determined when Moses would die, it was quite in order for the Torah to describe this as primarily Moses' campaign. By choosing to give orders for this campaign to be conducted without delay, Moses displayed his מסירת נפש, self-sacrifice, in order to carry out G'd's instructions. We will offer yet another interpretation of this verse.

מאת המדינים [AVENGE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] OF THE MIDIANITES — but not of the Moabites, for the Moabites entered into the matter out of fear, because they feared that they might plunder them, since about them it was stated only, (Deuteronomy 2:9) “Do not contend with them in battle”; but the Midianites, however, had got excited (had interfered) in a quarrel that did not concern them. Another explanation of why God forbade them to wage war against the Moabites, and which explains at the same time why they had been forbidden to wage war against the Ammonites (cf. Deuteronomy 2:19): because, said He, of the two goodly doves (virtuous women) which I am to bring forth from them, — Ruth the Moabitess, and Naamah the Ammonitess [Solomon's wife] (Bava Kamma 38b).

AVENGE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL OF THE MIDIANITES; AFTERWARD SHALT THOU BE GATHERED UNTO THY PEOPLE. It was decreed upon our teacher Moses not to cross over the Jordan, but on the other [eastern] side of the Jordan he fulfilled all the commandments [that were necessary] for Israel. Thus he conquered the two great Amorite kings, and divided their land up as an inheritance [amongst the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of the tribe of Menasheh], and it was he who was worthy of executing vengeance upon the enemies of the Eternal, leaving Joshua only the commandment of [conquering and dividing] the Land. Furthermore [this commandment was given to Moses because] the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him honor so that the righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance,⁵⁹Psalms 58:11 — Since the Midianites had enticed the people of Israel to immorality and the worship of Baal-peor (see Ramban above Balak 25:1 and Pinchas 25:11) the triumph of right over evil was thus a source of rejoicing to the righteous one [Moses]. this being the meaning of afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people. And Moses showed honor to Phinehas⁶⁰Verse 6. because he had begun the meritorious task [of punishing the Midianites, by killing Cozbi]⁶¹Above, 25:15. and it was up to him to finish it, and therefore he appointed him the anointed priest for this war.⁶²See Deuteronomy 20:2. It was not fitting that Eleazar should go [as the anointed priest of the war], because he was the High Priest [after the death of Aaron].⁶³Above, 20:28 — The position of the anointed priest of the war was always distinct from that of the High Priest (see Rambam, Hilchoth Klei Hamikdash, Chapter 3). Hence “it was not fitting,” as Ramban expresses it, that Eleazar the High Priest should go with the army and function in the role of the anointed priest of the war.

נקם נקמת, "avenge the Israelites, etc." The plain meaning of the verse is that G'd delegated Moses to carry out this task. How is it possible then that he did not even accompany the soldiers into battle? Although I have explained previously that the vengeance Moses took consisted of telling the people to launch this campaign, the plain meaning of the verse cannot be ignored. Who allowed Moses to send Pinchas instead when G'd had told him to take vengeance? Furthermore, why did the Torah make Moses' death depended on the completion of this punitive expedition?

נקום נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים, “Take vengeance for the Children of Israel against the Midianites.” Actually, it would have been appropriate for Moses to take this vengeance on this people who hated Hashem, but in view of Pinchas having been the one who commenced the reversal of the damage Midian had done to the Jewish people, Moses wanted him also to be the one who completed the mitzvah. (Compare verse 6)

נקום נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים, אחר תאסף לעמיך, “take vengeance for the Children of Israel from the Midianites; after that you will be gathered in to your people.” G’d told Moses that He did not reconsider His oath that Moses and Aaron would not lead the people into the Holy Land because they had failed to sanctify His name, etc. The above consideration is the reason why the Torah wrote this paragraph in conjunction with that describing that the privately made vows and oaths of individuals are subject to annulment.

But not against the Moavites. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why were they commanded to take revenge against the Midianites? Surely the Moavites hired Bil’am, as it is written in Parshas Balak (22:5). You might ask: Why does Rashi bring two reasons here, but in Parshas Pinchas (25:18) he brings only one? The answer is that he is answering another question: Why did the Torah here change its language and write “take revenge” while there it is written (25:17), “Antagonize the Midianites”? Rather, one must say that it was in order to make the inference: “Against the Midianites,” but not against the Moavites. Consequently, we see from the inference of “take revenge” that it was specifically killing them that was forbidden, while hating them was permitted. However, above (ibid.) it is implied that even hating them was forbidden, as it is written, “Antagonize the Midianites” [implying that they could not even antagonize the Moavites]. Thus the verses apparently contradict each other. In response, Rashi here brings two reasons: [Firstly] it is forbidden to kill them, “For the Midianites entered the matter out of fear…” [And secondly] regarding the implication that it is permitted to hate them, this was after the conversion of the "two doves," because the main reason [for not killing them] was for the sake of "two doves," etc. Therefore once the two doves had emerged it was permitted to hate them, however beforehand it was forbidden.

V. 2. נקם נקמת וגו׳: Mosche, der dem Volke das auf Keuschheit und Gottestreue gebaute Gottesgesetz zu überbringen gehabt hatte, soll nun auch vor seinem Scheiden den zur Sicherstellung dieser zwei Grundsäulen seiner Sendung, zum Schutze seines Volkes vor ג׳׳ע und ע׳׳ז notwendigen Schlag gegen die Midjaniten ausführen. נקם וגו׳. Wir haben schon Bereschit 4, 15, auf die Verwandtschaft von ”נקם“ mit ”קום“ hingewiesen. (Vergl. ”זור” ”זול“ ”נזל“ ”הום“ ”נהם“ ”דוח“ ”נדח“ ”אוץ“ ”נאץ“ ”פוץ“ ”נפץ“ ”סוג“ ”נסג“ ”נזר“ und a.) Es ist die Wiederaufrichtung eines mit Füßen getretenen Rechts oder einer zu Boden geworfenen Persönlichkeit. Der נוקם identifiziert sich mit dem aufzurichtenden Objekt. Daraus wohl die reflexive Form נקם. Dies erklärt auch die Konstruktion mit נקם ,מ נקמת בני ישראל מאת המדינים. Der Zweck ist nicht Wiedervergeltung, das Niederwerfen des Feindes; es wäre dies die Konstruktion mit ב. Zweck ist die Wiederaufrichtung Israels von den Midjanitern, seine geistige und sittliche Befreiung aus der Macht ihrer Künste.

נקום נקמת, “wreak vengeance!” the plain text appears to charge Moses personally with having to wreak this vengeance. However, seeing that he had been raised in Midian and had been saved from Pharaoh’s vengeance during all his years there, it would not have been moral for him to do this himself, just as he did not strike the river Nile during the plagues, as that river, i.e. its banks, had helped to save his life when he was an infant. He sent delegates as we read in verse 6, where the Torah quotes Moses as dispatching the 12000 soldiers to conduct the punitive campaign. [all righteous men who had not been involved in the shameful episode at Shittim, Ed.]

אחר תאסף, “after (that) you will be gathered in, etc.” Some commentators, such as Nachmanides, see in this a promise that Moses will live to see and enjoy the revenge on his enemies. Tanchuma Mattot 3 points out that whereas the Torah (G’d) speaks of a vengeance for Israel, Moses in turn speaks about a vengeance for G’d when he tells the Israelites the purpose of the punitive campaign against Midian in verse 3. Moses is quoted (by the Midrash) as saying to G’d: “O Lord if we had been uncircumcised, or even circumcised but worshipping idols, the Midianites would not have hated us. Why then do they hate us? Because of the Torah and the commandments which You have given to us. Therefore it is Your vengeance.” The concept behind all this is that anyone who attacks the Jewish people actually aims at the G’d of the Jewish people and uses the Jewish people as G’d’s alter-ego.

Enraged over a dispute which was not theirs. Meaning: They became enraged to quarrel with Yisroel when they, i.e. Yisroel, had not traveled through their land. Thus, they had no reason to quarrel with Yisroel.

The command: "take vengeance" is capable of two interpretations. 1) Moses was to prepare the campaign logistically and make all the preparations to ensure it would be militarily successful; 2) the actual battle which is the act of revenge. Moses understood correctly that what G'd wanted him to do was to prepare the groundwork to insure that the campaign would be successful. Moses reasoned that since G'd had not said to him הלחם במדין, "go into battle against Midian" -which would have been an unmistakable command- that what G'd wanted him to do was to plan the strategy. Moses also realised that he had to proceed with great astuteness as after all, in their previous encounter with the women of Midian the Israelites had become embroiled in the sin of גלוי עריות, some of them actively others only in their fantasies. While it was true that G'd had killed a substantial number of the active participants in that sin by the plague whereas others had been miraculously saved by Pinchas' deed, the accuser would certainly be at hand when the Israelites who had been steeped in sin were going to attack these people claiming moral superiority as their justification to kill all the male Midianites. It stood to reason that the Israelites were going to suffer a great number of casualties in such a campaign. There is some comparison here to the sin of the golden calf which resulted in Aaron being forbidden to enter the Holy of Holies in gold-trimmed garments so as not to endanger himself through arousing Satan and the attribute of Justice by reminding G'd of that sin (compare Rosh Hashanah 27). According to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 4, G'd also commanded the angels described in Isaiah's vision (Isaiah 6,2) to cover their feet with their wings in order that G'd should not be reminded of the sin of the golden calf as the feet of these angels were like those of calves. If this was so during normal times, in times of war the chances are even greater that the "accusers" will remind G'd of sins the Israelites had committed in order to cause their deaths in battle. Sotah 44 affords us an insight into the types of relatively minor sins that are capable of causing a soldier going to war to become a casualty. If someone was aware that he had engaged in conversation between putting on the phylacteries on the arm and the phylacteries on the head, he was sent home before the army joined the enemy in battle so that he would not become a casualty on account of that sin. All the Israelites who had been guilty of entertaining sexual fantasies involving the Moabite or Midianite women were not fit to be part of the punitive expedition as they would have exposed themselves to Satan and his forces at such a time. Clearly, when G'd told Moses to exact vengeance from the Midianites, He expected Moses to have such considerations in mind.

מאת המדינים, “from the Midianites.” Why single out the Midianites? Did not the Moabites initiate the whole scheme of cursing the Jewish people and, when that failed, the seduction by their women as we know from Numbers 22,7 and 25,1? The fact is that whatever the Moabites did was prompted by a genuine fear of the Israelites as reported in the Torah in detail in Numbers 22,3. After all, although G’d had told the Jewish people not to harass and make war against the Moabites, this did not preclude them from robbing their belongings, etc. The Midianites, however, had gotten involved in an argument which did not concern them at all. The Jewish people had no designs on their country and posed no threat to them. Furthermore, [Moab is not specified] because King David is a descendant of theirs.

For the sake of two doves. פרידות means “doves.” [You might ask: How could he say this] even though only one of them came from Moav. The answer is that Rashi used the language of the Gemara (Bava Kamma 38b). The other interpretation is necessary because according to the first reason there is the difficulty that above it was implied that even Midianites were fearful of Yisroel, as Rashi explained above that, “They made peace between themselves…” (22:4), therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation. However, according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that Hashem could have arranged that Yisroel would not kill the ancestors of the family of Rus, so why did he command them regarding the entire nation, [saying] not to antagonize Moav? Therefore, Rashi also brings the first reason.

The Torah continues ואחר תאסף אל עמיך. It would appear that until the campaign had been successfully completed Moses could not die peacefully as his people had not been rehabilitated. It would not do for Moses to leave behind his people in need of spiritual rehabilitation. His soul would not be able to face the hereafter with peace of mind. According to the Kabbalists the place one occupies in the hereafter while awaiting final judgment is called עמיו, "his people." G'd examines every single one of our sins during that judgment. We know all this from Psalms 50,3 וסביביו נשערה מאד, "around Him it stormed fiercely." The cause that would prevent Moses from occupying this place called עמיו was the affair of Zimri ben Salu which had found Moses paralysed, inactive, as described by Bamidbar Rabbah 20,24. Moses' hands were weakened by Zimri's challenge to him. [Zimri had asked Moses why he could not sleep with a Midianite woman seeing that Moses himself had married a Midianite woman. Ed.] G'd was angry that Moses had not avenged Him until Pinchas had done so. As a result, G'd told Moses that he could not die peacefully until he had rehabilitated himself by organising the punitive expedition against Midian. Once Moses had taken care of this assignment he would be able to die without the need to face an accuser after his death. This was one of the great acts of kindness G'd performed for Moses.

מאת המדינים. "from the Midianites." Why did the Torah write the word מאת instead of merely writing מהמדינים? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint at an ex Midianite who was in his birthplace at that time, i.e. Bileam. As a result of Bileam's being in the land of Midian at the time of this expedition the Israelites killed him by the sword (compare 31,8). Perhaps the reason G'd was in a hurry for this campaign to be launched was precisely because He was aware that Bileam was in that land at that time. Sanhedrin 106 tells us that the reason Bileam had travelled to Midian which was a long way from his home in Petorah was in order to collect his reward for having given the advice to seduce the Israelites as a result of which 24.000 of them died. G'd prepared a net for him to fall into when He ordered this campaign at that time.

וידבר משה וגו׳ AND MOSES SPAKE etc. — Although he had heard (v. 2) that his death was associated with this matter, he did it gladly and did not delay (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:2).

וידבר משה…החלצו מאתכם, Moses said.. "mobilise from amongst you, etc." The word לאמור in this verse is puzzling. To whom were the people supposed to relay what Moses told them? Furthermore, why did Moses use the expression החלצו instead of the formulation Moses used in Exodus 17,9 when he said to Joshua: בחר לנו אנשים, "choose some men for us, etc.?" Why did he not order Pinchas to do what he had ordered Joshua to do at that time instead of addressing his command to the people at large? Another peculiarity in this verse are the words ויהיו על מדין "so that they will be against Midian." Moses should have said: "so that they will do battle against Midian." Moreover, why did Moses change G'd's instructions? G'd had told Moses נקם נקמת בני ישראל, "avenge the vengeance of the Israelites," whereas Moses told the people to exact "G'd's vengeance," i.e. לתת נקמת השם? Besides, why did Moses not send a large army but selected only 1.000 men per tribe? Who had given him authority to send such a small force of soldiers against a numerically far superior people [governed by 5 kings Ed.]? When you consider that 32.000 girls who were still virgins were left you can arrive at some idea how many there must have been originally.

החלצו מאתכם, “mobilize from amongst yourselves, etc.” It is as if Moses had said: “gird your pioneers, your vanguard, (with their swords).” The words used here reflect an eagerness on the part of Moses to discharge his part in this commandment although G’d had told him that its fulfillment would bring about his death shortly thereafter. Tanchuma Mattot 4 points out the contrast between Moses and Joshua in this matter. When Joshua faced 31 Canaanite kings he said to himself: “if I slay them I will die shortly thereafter just as Moses died shortly after the Midianites were defeated.” What did Joshua do? He commenced with attacking one of the Canaanite kings and then delayed following up on his success as we know from Joshua 11,18: “Joshua was engaged for many years in battling all these kings.” When G’d observed this He told him: “because you did this in order to prolong your life I will deduct 10 years from the life span I had allocated to you originally. You should have lived to 120 years as did your teacher Moses. Now you will live to be only 110 years.” This is the meaning of Proverbs 19,21: “Many designs are in a man’s mind, but it is the Lord’s plan that is accomplished.“

Although he heard that his demise depended… For it is written, “Take revenge… afterward, you shall be gathered to your people” (v. 2). However, if not so [that he joyfully implemented it], why is it necessary to say, “Moshe spoke,” given that ordinarily he related to Yisroel everything that Hashem commanded?

V. 3. אל העם וידבר וגו׳ אל העם לאמר, nicht zu den Führern; aus der Mitte des Volkes selbst heraus soll dieser Akt der Vindizierung seiner geistigen und sittlichen Integrität geschehen. Indem der Heereszug Midjan und nicht Moab galt, die die materielle Schwächung, nicht aber die geistige und sittliche Tötung Israels beabsichtigten, musste das geistige und sittliche Motiv dieses Heereszuges dem Volke mit doppelter Bedeutsamkeit ins Bewusstsein treten. Nicht wer Israels materiellen Untergang, wer seinen geistigen und sittlichen Tod herbeiführt, ist sein eigentlicher Feind, — חלץ ,החלצו: etwas aus seiner bisherigen Verbindung herauslösen, so: Steine aus der Mauer (Wajikra 14. 43), einen an den Fuß fest gebundenen Schuh nach Auflösung des Bandes ausziehen (Dewarim 25, 9). Daher so häufig: jemanden aus einer Gefahr, aus einer Enge herausziehen, retten, freimachen. החלוץ beim Heere: der "Detachierte" aus der Mitte der Truppen vorausgeschickte Vortrab (Josua 6, 7 f.). Daher חלוצי צבא: die aus der Mitte des Volkes zum Heeresdienst Entsendeten. Die Heerespflicht liegt auf allen. Sie entsenden einen Teil aus ihrer Mitte, diese Pflicht für das allgemeine zu lösen. Daher hier die eigentümliche Konstruktion: החלצו מאתכם; in החלצו ist die Gesamtheit das Objekt, durch מאתכם wird dies auf eine Auswahl beschränkt. החלצו allein stellte die Forderung an alle, sich von allen sie zurückhaltenden häuslichen Banden loszumachen und in den Heereszug einzutreten (siehe Jebamot 102b (שלופי מביתא לקרבא מאתכם beschränkt diese Aufgabe auf eine Auswahl von ihnen, die aber durch das vorangehende החלצו als die Vertreter der Gesamtheit begriffen werden. In ihnen zieht die Gesamtheit aus. — לתת נקמת ד׳ במדין, was V. 2 als נקמת בני ישראל begriffen ward, wird hier als נקמת ד dem Volke zum Bewusstsein gebracht. Es ist Gott, dem sie durch jede Trübung ihrer geistigen und sittlichen Integrität entrissen werden, Er sendet sie darum aus, seine Vergeltung an Midjan zu vollbringen. Mit der Politik der Verführung übt Midjan das größte internationale Verbrechen und hat damit vor Gott die Existenzberechtigung als Volk unter Völkern verloren.

לתת נקמת ה' במדין, “to execute the Lord’s vengeance against Midian. It is peculiar to read this, as G-d’s instructions had been to execute the Children of Israel’s vengeance against Midian. (verse 2) What made Moses change the venue?We must imagine that Moses, upon hearing the instructions, had said to G-d: “the vengeance is really Yours o Lord, as the only reason why the Canaanites, Midianites, etc hate us, is on account of You.” (B’chor shor). This is why the Israelites went to war against the Midianites, who were not part of the Moabites whose measure of guilt had not yet made them candidates for destruction by G-d. The Midianites had meddled in matters that did not concern them, and had no reason to fear the Israelites as their geographic location did not block Israel’s access to the Land of Canaan. The prophet Bileam had already stated that though he could foresee the complete collapse of Moav, he saw it as occurring in the distant future. [700 800 years later the Israelites were still involved in wars against Moav during the time of Elijah and Elisha. Ed.] At any rate, the Moabites had several reasons to fear the aggression of the Israelites so that they could be excused for acting in a hostile manner against them. One of their complaints was that the Israelites had actually conquered land that used to belong to Moav when they defeated King Sichon of the Canaanites, who conquered those lands previously from the Moabites. The Israelites had not returned it to Moav, but had settled it.

החלצו — Understand this as the Targum does in the sense of “equipped (חלוצי) for war”, armed.

Righteous men. For the Torah should not have written “men” given that it is not the nature of women to go out to war, so obviously they were men. Rather, “men” comes to teach you that they were righteous. Likewise, in Parshas Shelach (13:2) Rashi did not explain these words, “Send men for yourself” that they were righteous, because the word “men” was necessary for itself [i.e., to convey the plain meaning]. However, concerning “men” that was written subsequently (13:3) he explained that they were righteous, because the word “men” there is apparently superfluous since “men” had already been mentioned. Re’m explains that [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “From among yourselves” and since this statement was addressed to men, it is logical that those who were went to war were men. Therefore, why was it necessary to write “men”?

However, as we already mentioned in our introduction, this expedition was based on the attackers' moral superiority over its adversaries as evidenced by G'd's instruction to "avenge." Moses had to mobilise the kind of soldiers whose fantasies had not run wild at the time of the debacle in Shittim. How was he to know which one of the Israelites had indulged in sinful thoughts at the time? Moses therefore advised each man of military age to examine himself in this matter. This is the meaning of החלצו מאתכם, "separate yourselves from your own selves," i.e. examine your conscience if you are morally fit to take part in such a punitive expedition of the morally superior against the morally inferior. Only those who knew that they could qualify under this heading would be considered for the contingent of 1.000 per tribe. The word לאמור is a hint that these people should all "speak to their inner selves on this subject." Perhaps the very word לאמור was even an allusion to the sin of גלוי עריות as we find in Sanhedrin 56 "the word לאמור refers to illicit sex." According to Midrash Tanchuma on our verse these men were all righteous. Although we have explained elsewhere that one can only derive such a conclusion from the word אנשים when this word is superfluous in the text, in our instance there is independent support for the theory that the אנשים mentioned here had to be righteous men. Seeing this was so they had no reason to worry although they would be far outnumbered by the Midianites. Moreover, they were not only righteous but they qualified for the appellation חסידים, "pious," because they had been confronted with a powerful temptation and had conquered it. Zohar Chadash volume 3 page 195 states that this is the basis for someone being described as pious. This then explains Moses' considerations as to whom to select and how many to select.

אנשים MEN — righteous men, and similar is, (Exodus 17:9) “Choose men for us”, and so, too, (Deuteronomy 1:13) “men wise and well-known” (Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 3).

It is as if he stands… Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why is it not written “revenge of Yisroel”?

ויהיו על מדין, "and they will be against Midian." We can best explain this expression by reverting to a statement of the Kabbalists that sanctity is the mystical foundation of spiritual ascent, whereas the קליפה, the source of negative spiritual forces are the mystical foundation of spiritual descent of a human being. Once a person commits a sin, part of the קליפה, attaches itself to him and becomes part of his nature causing him to become degraded. We have explained this already at the beginning of Parshat Ki Tissa in connection with Exodus 30,12 (my translation page 814). The words על מדין then mean that these pious soldiers should be able to be "above Midian," i.e. be spiritually superior. None of the forces of impurity which cling to the Midianites would cling to these soldiers.

‎'נקמת ה‎ “THE VENGEANCE OF THE LORD” — [This is really equivalent to the expression God had employed (v.2), “the vengeance of the children of Israel”], because whoever attacks Israel is as though he attacks the Holy One blessed be He.

לתת נקמת השם, "to execute G'd's vengeance." This too was part of Moses' astuteness, his endeavour to achieve the objective of avenging the sin the Midianites had caused the Jewish people to commit. Moses commanded these soldiers that their motivation should be to avenge a wrong done to G'd whose commandments the Midianites had caused the Jewish people to violate and neglect. Their vengeance should not focus on the fact that the Midianites had caused the death of so many Israelites. If that were to be their motivation in going to war against the Midianites this would not be a מצוה which would help them succeed in this campaign without sustaining casualties. It is true that G'd Himself had told Moses that the Israelites were to avenge what the Midianites had done to them. However, the Torah does not say that G'd told Moses to convey this thought to the Israelites. In G'd's conversation with Moses He left it to Moses to figure out the best way to achieve the result G'd had in mind.

Our verse may also be understood thus: There would be no need for these soldiers to actually fight a battle; all they had to do was to be there physically. G'd would do the fighting on their behalf. The reason was לתת נקמת השם, it was to be a vengeance which G'd exacted from Midian. The situation was similar to Exodus 14,14 when Moses told the people not to worry, but that G'd would fight the Egyptians on their behalf.

וימסרו מאלפי ישראל אלף למטה, One thousand men per tribe were handed over from amongst the many thousands of Israelites, etc. This means that everyone who was certain that he fulfilled the qualifications needed volunteered to be part of the thousand men from his tribe. Once the number 1.000 in that tribe had been reached no further volunteers were asked for. Moses deliberately limited the number in each tribe to one thousand so as not to create a situation which would be embarassing, such as when one tribe would field many more volunteers than another.

לכל מטות ישראל [A THOUSAND OF EVERY TRIBE] THROUGHOUT ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL — including, therefore, the tribe of Levi (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:3).

This includes the tribe of Levi. One would have said that since the tribe of Levi did not take a portion in the land, they would also not partake in the army. Therefore it was necessary to include them. You might ask: Since the tribe of Levi also went to the army there would be thirteen [thousand] since Ephraim and Menashe were considered [separately] in all of the counts. But it is written, “They were handed over… one thousand from each tribe, twelve thousand.” Re’m answers that Ephraim and Menashe were considered two tribes only regarding the inheritance of the Land. Consequently, for the selection of spies which was required as part of the inheritance of the Land, they were considered two tribes. However here, where it was solely [for the purpose] to avenge Hashem, they were referred to as only one tribe. See the commentators who discuss this matter at length.

V. 4. אלף למטה וגו׳. Dieser auch Verse 5 und 6 wiederholte Ausdruck spricht wiederholt den bereits zu V. 3 bemerkten Gedanken aus, dass die zum Heere Ausziehenden eine Aufgabe der Gesamtheit als deren Delegierte zu vollbringen gehen, jeder Stamm ist in ihnen durch gleiche Anzahl aus seiner Mitte vertreten.

One thousand from each tribe. The verse begins with an aleph and ends with an aleph, which teaches that they were all of one heart to their Father in Heaven.

לכל מטות ישראל, “of each of the tribes of Israel.” This included even the tribe of Levi. (Compare both Sifri and Rashi) Seeing that the Midianites had had evil intentions also against the tribe of Levi, there was no reason why that tribe should not participate in this punitive campaign.

וימסרו SO THERE WERE HANDED OVER … [A THOUSAND OF EVERY TRIBE] — This serves to tell you in what high esteem the shepherds of Israel were really held — how dear they were to Israel. Up until they had heard of his approaching death what does it state? That Moses felt constrained to exclaim about them, “They are almost ready to stone me”! (Exodus 17:14). But when they heard that Moses’ death was associated with the execution of vengeance upon Midian (cf. v. 2), they refused to go to war until they were “handed over” against their own will (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:3).

וימסרו, to Moses by the representatives of each tribe.

וימסרו, even under protest, something that could be due to Moses’ death having been linked to the conclusion of this campaign (verse 2). Israelites, in order to prolong Moses’ life might refuse to join this expedition. (compare Sifri 157)

וימסרו מאלפי ישראל, “they were handed over from amongst the thousands of Israelites, etc.” Our sages in Sifri Mattot 157 comment on this that these men had not volunteered but had been drafted against their will due to their love of Moses; they knew that Moses’ death would result from their waging this war and they did not want to contribute to Moses’ death.

They refused to go until they were handed over against their wishes. For if not so, it should have said, “Moshe took twelve thousand…”

V. 5. מסר וימסרו kommt in תנ׳׳ך nur hier und V. 16 vor. Rabbinisch ist es der ganz gewöhnliche Ausdruck für übergeben, überliefern. Hier entspricht der Ausdruck dem ganzen angedeuteten Verhältnisse. Jeder Stamm übergab Mosche das zu seiner Vertretung bei Ausführung dieser Gesamtaufgabe von ihm aus ihm ausgewählte tausend,

וימסרו מאלפי ישראל, “there were ‘delivered’ from the thousands of Israelite men of military age, etc.” These men were not volunteers but conscripts as Rashi has explained. G-d had told Moses to select these conscripts by means of lots. (Bamidbar Rabbah 22,3.)

אתם ואת פינחס [MOSES SENT THEM … TO THE WAR], THEM AND PHINEAS — The repetition of the word אתם, “them”, in association with Phineas’ name tells us that Phineas was regarded as equal to all of them together. — But why did Phineas go and Eleazar did not go? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “He who made a beginning with this meritorious work, in that he slew Kozbi the daughter of Zur (who was a Midianitess), let him complete it”. — Another explanation why Phineas and not Eleazar went is that he went to take vengeance for Joseph, his mother’s ancestor, as it is said, (Genesis 37:36) “And the Midianites sold him [unto Egypt]”. And from where do we know that Phineas’ mother was of the family of Joseph? Because it is said, (Exodus 6:25) that she was “one of the daughters of Putiel” (see Rashi on that verse) — which is explained to mean that she was of the seed of Jethro who used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous worship, and of the seed of Joseph who overcame (שפטפט, who talked or argued with) his passions (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4; Sotah 43a). — Another explanation: Phineas went because he was the high priest anointed for war purposes (cf. Deuteronomy 20:2 and Rashi thereon) (Sotah 43a).

AND MOSES SENT THEM, A THOUSAND OF EVERY TRIBE. He did not send all the members of the army there, although the Midianites were a large people, and their cities were fortified, and very large.⁶⁴Ibid., 13:28. The reason for this is that those who had sinned with the Moabite women were many, and they were not fit to execute the vengeance of the Eternal;⁶⁵Verse 3. therefore they chose those men who were known amongst their tribes as righteous men.⁶⁶See Deuteronomy 1:13. Now Moses did not command them what to do, but merely told them to execute the vengeance of the Eternal on Midian,⁶⁵Verse 3. and he thought that they would let none of them remain or escape,⁶⁷Joshua 8:22. but [would execute the vengeance of the Eternal] like the vengeance [they were commanded] in connection with Amalek or the vengeance [they were commanded] in connection with the seven nations [of the land of Canaan]. And therefore when Moses saw that they had spared the women and children and the cattle, he was angry about [the fact that they had left alive] the women who had had sexual intercourse, because the officers of the army should have killed them as the very first thing, both as execution of the vengeance [which they were now commanded to do], and in performance of the general law of the Torah [that a living thing which causes a man to sin must be killed, as it is said], and ye shall slay the beast.⁶⁸Leviticus 20:15. And when he saw that the people wanted [to keep] the spoil, he remitted [and allowed them to keep] the female children⁶⁹Further, Verse 18. and the spoil.⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 20.
It is also possible to explain that Moses was [only] commanded to Harass the Midianites, and Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites,⁷¹Above, 25:17, and Verse 2 of this Chapter. [but was not commanded to destroy them all like Amalek and the seven nations]. Therefore he sent only a small contingent [twelve thousand men] to strike at the unwalled towns⁷²Deuteronomy 3:5. and fell every good tree, and stop all fountains of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones⁷³II Kings 3:19. as spoilers usually do, and he did not give them any specific commands except that they should execute whatever vengeance they were able to do — and G-d, blessed be He, Who controls [the course of all] battles, gave the Midianites and their [five] kings and cities into their hands. Therefore Moses was only angry about [their sparing] the women who had had sexual intercourse, and [he was] not angry about anything else,⁷⁴Thus, according to this second explanation, Moses originally did not command them to destroy everything, but only to harass the Midianites as a form of vengeance. Hence we understand why he was not angry about their sparing the children and spoil, but only about their sparing the grown-up women who had caused the sin. and his command [to kill] the male children⁷⁵Verse 17. was an [additional measure of] retributive punishment.
Now Moses was wroth with the officers of the host⁷⁶Verse 14. but showed honor to Phinehas [by not criticizing him, too], because G-d had given unto him His covenant of peace.⁷⁷Above, 25:12. And in the Sifre we are taught:⁷⁸Sifre, Matoth 157. “Phinehas said to Moses: As you have commanded us, so have we done.” But I do not know what this statement means, since according to the Scriptural verses [here] Moses did not command them anything specific, for had he commanded them something which [as Phinehas said] they fulfilled, how could he [Moses] have been angry with them? [We cannot say that he was angry because they did not do everything that he told them to,] because had he commanded them, Heaven forbid that [we say that] Phinehas would transgress his command! Saul lost his kingdom on account of such disobedience!⁷⁹I Samuel 13:14. But the [explanation of the matter] is as I have said, that Moses [merely] commanded them to execute the vengeance of the Eternal on Midian,⁶⁵Verse 3. and Phinehas told him: “We have executed great vengeance on them.” It is also possible to explain that Phinehas told Moses: “Just as you charged us with the law of the Torah given at Mount Sinai, namely, When thou shalt besiege a city etc.⁸⁰Deuteronomy 20:19. In the context of Ramban’s remarks here, it would seem that the reference is to Verses 10-14 ibid: When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fight against it … but the women, and the little ones, and the cattle … thou shalt take. It was this law which was Phinehas’ defense. so have we done to them.” And Moses was angry about [their sparing] the adult women, because, Behold, these caused the children of Israel etc.,⁸¹Verse 16. and he added [the command to kill] every male among the little ones⁷⁵Verse 17. in order to complete the retribution.

וישלח אותם משה אלף אלף למטה לצבא, he sent one thousand men of each tribe.

וישלח אותם ואת פנחס, Moses sent them…together with Pinchas, etc. The reason the Torah wrote the word וישלח, "he sent them," was to make the soldiers participating in this campaign into שלוחי מצוה, delegates charged with the performance of a sacred duty, a מצוה. We have the rule that delegates on a מצוה-mission are safe from harm while performing their task. The verse repeats the word אתם to tell us that the presence of Pinchas with these twelve thousand pious soldiers doubled their effectiveness; Pinchas was equivalent in piety to all the other 12.000 soldiers combined.

וישלח אותם משה אלף למטה, “Moses sent them on the way, one thousand men from each tribe.” Nachmanides writes that the reason why Moses did not send out the whole army of Israel, even though the Midianites were a numerous people, seeing that they had five kings governing them and they lived in well fortified cities, he could not do so, because too many of the people had become victims of the seduction and as such were hardly qualified to endanger themselves in war and become an easy target for Satan to attack. Moses therefore decided to select few men, but men whose integrity had stood the challenge of seduction, men who were truly righteous. These men were known as righteous people, each within his tribe. Strangely, Moses reversed what G’d had said to him, i.e. to avenge the wrong done to Israel, and he instructed the soldiers to avenge the wrong done to G’d’s image. He did not issue any specific instructions concerning how to avenge that wrong. He took it for granted that these soldiers would not allow any living creature to remain alive, just as Samuel later on commanded that the Amalekites all be killed men women and children as well as all their livestock. Or, at least, he thought, they would be treated like the 7 Canaanite nations of whom G’d had instructed not to allow a single soul to survive. When Moses found out that these soldiers had allowed the women and children to survive, and that they brought home an immense amount of booty, he became very angry, especially that women who had already lost their virginity had been allowed to survive, as these types of women were the ones who had seduced the Israelites. He was less upset about the children being allowed to survive, and he did not mind the booty the soldiers brought home. It is further possible to assume that Moses was commanded to harass the Midianites in order to take the vengeance of the Israelites, and he dispatched only relatively few men, intending to smite only the cities of the Perisite (one of the Canaanite tribes) planning to destroy every tree, to seal off all the wells, as was the custom by ordinary invaders. Seeing that it is Hashem Who, -in the last analysis, conducts the fortunes of war,- delivered the cities into their hands as well as their kings, Moses certainly could not be angry at any of this. The only thing he was angry at was that the very category of women who had been the seductresses had been kept alive to become slaves in Jewish homes. His demand for male “innocent” children to be killed was part of the element of “vengeance” which G’d had commanded to be taken.

אותם ואת פינחס, “they together with Pinchas.” The wording suggests that Pinchas by himself was equal to all of the twelve thousand men in moral/spiritual stature. Why did Pinchas go instead of his father the High Priest Eleazar? G’d had said: “the one who commenced by assuaging My anger and slew the first Midianite (Cosbi) shall complete the task” (Tanchuma Mattot 3). Moses, who had spent many years in Midian which had served as his refuge from Pharaoh after he had slain the Egyptian did not join the campaign so as not to give people an opportunity to say that “he threw stones into the well from which he used to drink.”

This teaches that Pinchas was equivalent to all of them. For it is written “Moshe sent them [one thousand…].” So why did the Torah repeat itself and write, “Them and Pinchas”? Rather, it was to teach that…

V. 6. וישלח אתם וגו׳ ואת פינחס וגו׳. Bei keinem der früheren Heereszüge, nicht im Kriege gegen Sichon, gegen Og, gegen Emori, steht die Anwesenheit eines Priesters mit ארון und חצוצרות so ausdrücklich wie hier. Jene waren Verteidigungs- und Eroberungszüge materieller Bedeutung. Diesem Zuge lag aber das Motiv der höchsten geistigen und sittlichen Interessen zu Grunde. Dem entspricht vor allem der Priester mit dem Gesetzeszeugnis und den Gottes, Beistand aufrufenden. זה ארון ולוחות שבו: וכלי הקדש — .חצוצרות (Sota 43 a). Galt es doch, den לוחות und dem ארון, dem Gesetze und seinen in Israel zu schaffenden Trägern und Wahrern die unangefeindete Existenz in Mitte der Völker zu sichern. חצצרות התרועה (siehe Kap. 10, 8 und 9). אין ידו אלא רשותו .בידו (ספרי).

Them and Pinchas. Rashi explained that he sought to avenge Yoseif, his maternal forefather. The explanation of this is that Moshe trusted him not to have pity on the Midianites and that he would completely eliminate them, because in any case Pinchas hated them due to their involvement in the sale of Yoseif to Egypt. Egypt was a place heavily steeped in licentiousness, and now the Midianites followed their forefathers’ footsteps and attempted to cause the downfall of Bnei Yisroel through harlotry. Moreover, Pinchas began the mitzvah, which would assist him in bringing the matter to completion. This is because since it is so that “a mitzvah brings about another mitzvah” (Avos 4:5), then certainly a part of a mitzvah will bring about the completion of it. Moshe did not want to go, because he was raised in Midian. He was afraid that if the warriors would be lax in any matter, the people would blame it on Moshe, and say that he had pity on the place in which he was raised.

וישלח אותם משה, “Moses sent them forth;” (the 12000 men making up the punitive expedition against the Midianites) You, the reader, will recall that the Lord had instructed Moses personally to head this expedition. (Verse 2 in our chapter, where He also added that after having carried out this mission Moses would die.) Why did Moses delegate others to do what he had been commanded to do himself? The reason must have been that seeing that he had found refuge there from persecution by the Egyptian secret service and had even became the son-in-law of a prominent priest in Midian, he did not think that G–d had meant for him to lead this campaign, just as he had not been ordered to strike the Nile which had sheltered him but had delegated that task to his brother Aaron at the time. He acted according to the well known proverb: “do not bite the hand that fed you.” Another interpretation suggests that the Midian of which Cosbi had been a princess was not the same Midian as that which is described in the Book of Exodus. [The Midian which Moses fled to bordered the desert of Sinai, whereas the Midian which is featured in connection with Bileam and Balak is situated in the Arabian peninsula bordering the red sea. Ed.] The reason why Moses chose Pinchas to be the leader of this expedition was that seeing he had commenced with turning away G–d’s wrath from the people, he should be given a chance to complete this good deed by punishing the seducers of his people. (Compare Bamidbar Rabbah 23,4)

וכלי הקדש AND THE VESSELS OF HOLINESS … [WERE WITH THEM] — these were the Ark and the Golden Plate (which are termed קדש, “holiness”, in Numbers 4:20 and Leviticus 8:9 respectively) (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4; Sotah 43a). — Because Balaam was with them (the Midianites) and through enchantment he made the kings of Midian float in the air and he himself floated with them, he (Phineas) showed them (held up to them) the Golden Plato upon which the Divine Name was engraved and they immediately fell to the ground. On this account it is said (v. 8) of the Kings of Midian that they were killed “upon those belonging to them who had been killed”, meaning that they fell from the air upon those who had already been killed; and similarly of Balaam it is written in the book of Joshua (13:22): “[And Balaam the son of Beor did the children of Israel slay] upon those who were slain by them” (Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 2; Talmud Yerushalmi Sanhedrin 10:2).

אותם ואת פינחס, after the 12.000 men had all been assembled he sent Pinchas to accompany them.

וכלי הקודש, “and the holy vessels, etc.” This is a reference to the Holy Ark and the golden headband of the High Priest (Sotah 43). Tanchuma Mattot 5 relates that the Midianites employed all kinds of charms in conjunction with Bileam and that the kings were riding in the air when they saw this war. Moses had told the soldiers that if they noticed that the kings of the Midianites would employ such means against them they should show the ציץ, and the Midianites would immediately fall to the ground. This is the reason that the Torah writes (in verse 8) ואת מלכי מדין הרגו על חלליהם, “and they killed the kings of the Midianites “on, above” with their slain ones.” The Torah means that these kings dropped out of the air on top of the slain Midianites whereupon the Israelites killed them. We find something similar in Joshua 13,22: “together with the others that they slew, the Israelites put Bileam son of Beor, the magician, to the sword.”

Why did Pinchas go… It is understandable without this [previous comment], for one would have said that the reason he did not send Elozor was due to Elozor’s importance, since he was equivalent to all of them. However, now that Rashi explained that Pinchas was also equivalent to all of them, why did he send Pinchas?

The fact that Moses selected Pinchas instead of Joshua to be the leader of this expedition was also an astute move by Moses. Pinchas had already demonstrated jealousy on behalf of G'd. Who could have served as better inspiration for the task at hand than Pinchas? He radiated more destructive power against negative spiritual forces than did Joshua. It is also possible that Moses was afraid of the people who would assail these soldiers wanting to know that if they considered themselves as so pious why had they not protested the involvement of their brethren in the harlotry and thus helped prevent such sins from being perpetrated? To head off such criticism Moses sent along Pinchas who had risked his life in order to bring this harlotry to a stop. Perhaps this is what the Torah alluded to with the unusual construction אתם ואת פנחס, "they together with Pinchas." Moses hoped that by his presence Pinchas would supply the missing factor, i.e. the preparedness for self sacrifice in order to stop others from sinning, something which even the pious soldiers had not contributed at the time of the debacle at Shittim. It is possible that G'd already originally intended that only someone of the calibre of Pinchas could wipe out the shameful stain which would remain on Israel's character if the Midianites were allowed "to get away" with what they had done. G'd was grateful to Moses' choice of Pinchas as the leader of this expedition. G'd Himself had not wanted to direct Moses to appoint Pinchas in charge of this expedition fearing that such a directive might have made Moses think that he himself was not qualified to lead this punitive campaign. The result of G'd's astuteness was that His desire was carried out without Moses becoming embarassed in the process.

And Pinchas. He went to take revenge for Yoseif. He saw that the Midianites were opposed to Yoseif, and that was the reason the sale of Yoseif took place through them, because harm comes to a person through those that oppose him. Yoseif was the opposite of Midian because he restrained himself from illicit relations and, in contrast, they sent their daughters to harlotry. Thus, they received harm from the descendent of Yoseif.

בידו means IN HIS POSSESSION (not actually “in his hand”, for it was impossible for him to hold these sacred objects in his hand), similar to (21:26) “And he took all his land from his possession (מידו)” (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4).

לצבא וכלי הקודש וחצוצרות התרועה בידו, he sent him to the army, as head, i.e. as the priest especially appointed in every war involving invasion of foreign territory. The various holy vessels, including the trumpets would be at his disposal during that period.

By executing Kozbi … Another interpretation. According to the [first] reason alone there is the difficulty that the principle mitzvah was his executing Zimri, not Kozbi. Therefore Rashi brings the other interpretation that “he sought…” However, according to the other interpretation alone there is the difficulty that [ultimately] it was for Yosef’s benefit that they sold him to the Egyptians, for he became the ruler there. Therefore Rashi brings another interpretation that he was anointed for warfare. However, according to this reason alone there is the difficulty as to why the verse specified Pinchas’ name [teaching] he was anointed for warfare regarding this war more than another war. Therefore Rashi required all the reasons. (Gur Aryeh) It appears to me that the intent of this teaching is not to say that Pinchas was a reminder for them of what the Midianites did to Yosef, for any love or hatred towards them had already disappeared, and there was no memory of them. Rather, it means that when Moshe saw that the sale of Yosef took place through the Midianites, he realized that the Midianites were his nemesis. For if this were not so, the sale of Yosef would not have taken place through their hand, given that [Hashem] only brings evil upon a person through those who are the antithesis of them. Yosef was the antithesis of Midian, for he scrupulously resisted immorality, while they abandoned their wives and daughters to promiscuity. And this is what Rashi means when he said, “From the children of Yosef who scorned his evil inclination.” Thus, because he scorned his evil inclination he was the antithesis of Midian and they received their punishment through Pinchas, one of the descendants of Yosef, who in contrast to Midian resisted illicit relationships.

This refers to the Ark and the Golden Headplate. Because both are termed “holy,” as it is written [concerning the Ark] at the end of Parshas Bamidbar (4:20), “They shall not come in to see when the holy is being covered.” And concerning the Headplate, it is written in Parshas Tetzaveh (Shemos 28:36), “Make a Headplate … holy to Hashem.”

In his possession. So that you should not wonder: How could Pinchas have carried all of this in his hand, the Ark with the Headplate and the trumpets?

ויהרגו כל זכר, “they killed every male,” i.e. the adults. The male children were part of the loot as per verse 9.

חמשת מלכי מדין THE FIVE KINGS OF MIDIAN — But can I not see that Scripture has enumerated five; why, then, does it feel compelled to say that there were five? But it is to tell you that even as they had all been alike in the plot, so, too, they were treated alike in the punishment that befell them (cf. Rashi on Genesis 25:22, where, as here, the total of the names mentioned is stated) (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5). — Balaam had gone there to receive the reward for the 24,000 whom he had made to fall of Israel through his counsel and now also he left Midian to meet Israel and gave them bad advice: viz., he said to them, “If, when you were 600,000 you were unable to overcome them, now you come to war against them with 12,000?” They gave him his full reward and did not stint it (they slew him) (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

ואת מלכי..חמשת מלכי מדין, "and the kings of Midian….-the five kings of Midian." The reason that the Torah spelled out their number (i.e. 5), something we had already counted ourselves, was to tell us that they were all killed next to one another so that all the soldiers could count the bodies of these five kings whom they had slain. The reason why the Torah repeats that they were kings may have been to tell us that they were killed by soldiers who knew full well that these five men were kings. They were not the victims of random killings.

ואת צור, “and Tzur;” the father of Cozbi חמשת מלכי מדין, “the five kings of Midian.” The reason the Torah wrote the word חמשת מלכי מדין as if mentioning their names did not already tell us that there five such kings, is to tell us that all five were of one mind concerning their hostility against Israel. The construct form חמשת reflected this. The reason that Bileam was there was that he had detoured on his way home, (a long way off from Aram) in order to collect his reward for having been the cause of the 24,000 men of Shimon killed by the plague, Bileam had mocked the Israelites saying: “if you could not go to war against Midian when there were 600,000 of you, how can you now expect to defeat them with only 12,000 men?” He had tried to undermine their self-confidence (compare Tanchuma Mattot 3). [The challenge by Bileam reported here is not found in Tanchuma. Ed.]

To receive the reward for the twenty-four thousand. Rashi is answering the question: Why was Bil’am with the Midianites? Surely he was from Aram Naharayim. [And the reason why] he went to the Midianites to ask for his reward rather than going to Balak was because they were the agents of the sin. Alternatively, he may have been there at that time because he passed through on his way to Balak to request his reward. (Nachalas Yaakov) The answer [why he went there and not to Balak] is that when he heard Yisroel came to antagonize the Midianites, he went to help them and also to take his reward. Thus, there was a dual cause; for it is possible that he would not have gone to Balak for the reward alone, and consequently this is why he did not go. (Gur Aryeh) answers that by law, the Moavites were not liable to pay him, because they could claim that when they had agreed to give him a large reward they did so out of fear. We see this concept in the last chapter of Bava Kamma (116a) concerning one who was fleeing prison and offered someone a dinar to take him across [a river]. There he can only claim his [normal] fee because the fugitive made his offer only out of fear. Here too Bil’am would receive only a nominal reward, a small amount for the trouble of his speaking and for the advice he had given them. However, the Midianites were not afraid and they promised him a large reward, thus they were obliged to pay his full reward as they had agreed. [Alternatively Bil’am’s advice] was agreeable to Midian but not to Moav, for Moav acted out of fear, while Midian acted out of hatred, as Rashi says that they abandoned their daughters [to promiscuity] (25:15). (Kitzur Mizrochi) answers that in accordance with the Midrash that Tzur was Balak, consequently he was one of the five kings of Midian, and therefore Bil’am went there to request from him his reward.

V. 8. על חלליהם, sie waren nicht die ersten im Kampfe. — ואת בלעם. Es scheint, dass er, nachdem. er den Erfolg seines Rates erfahren, aus seiner Heimat wieder nach Moab und Midjan gekommen und die Seele der von den Midjaniten noch fortgesetzten Verführungskünste war. Nach Sanhedrin 106 a wäre er gekommen, um sich einen Lohn für seinen erfolgreichen Rat zu erbitten.

על חלליהם, “with their other slain comrades;” the word על here means: “with,” as for instance in Leviticus 25,31. (Compare what our author explains on that verse). Compare also על עולות התמיד in Numbers 28,15, as well as Exodus 35,20 האנשים על הנשים, “the men with the women,” and numerous other examples.

בחרב [BALAAM ALSO … THEY SLEW] WITH THE SWORD — He came against Israel exchanging his metier (the sword) for their metier (the mouth), for they conquer only through their mouth — through prayer and petition, and he came and availed himself of their craft to curse them with his mouth. They, therefore, also came against him and exchanged their craft for the craft of the heathen peoples who come with the sword, as it is said, (Genesis 27:40) “And by thy sword shalt thou live” (cf. Rashi on Numbers 22:23).

And offered them evil advice. For if not so, how could they have killed him given that he was not a Midianite? One cannot say [they killed Bil’am] because he caused them to sin, for they did not know this until they returned from Midian, as it states (v. 16), “They were the very same ones who, on Bil’am’s advice, were involved with Bnei Yisroel.” Rather, it was because he offered them evil advice [i.e.] to rebel against Hashem’s command.

הרגו בחרב, they killed by the sword. The Torah had to write the word הרגו, "they killed" once more when describing the manner of Bileam's death though we gleaned his information already from the context (end of verse 7). The reason is best understood when we read Sifri where it is stated that Bileam had gone there to collect his fee for the diabolical advice he had given Balak with such stunning results. According to Sifri, at that moment Bileam was on the way to advise the Israelites not to make war against Midian saying to them that if they had been unable to overcome Midian when the were able to field 600.000 fighting men, now that they numbered fewer they would certainly not be able to do so. According to the Sifri that the Israelites killed Bileam as a response to his effrontery, he was killed before the battle against the Midianites had taken place. This was all part of G'd's clever plot. He wanted to demonstrate that Bileam did not die because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that He, G'd, had arranged things so that the Israelites would have an excuse to single him out for killing. Had the Torah not repeated the word הרגו unnecessarily, we would not have been able to deduce this from the text. The emphasis on the word בחרב, "by the sword," is to show that all his sorcery did not help Bileam and instead of their "killing" only his alter ego they killed his body.

ואת בלעם, “and Bileam;” after Bileam had returned from Moav to Aram Naharayim, his home base, he traveled toMidian in order to collect a fee from the elders of Midian who had been in the first delegation Balak had sent to him to ask him to curse the Israelites. When he heard that a great plague had befallen the Israelites, he wanted to cash in on this, claiming that he had been the instrument that brought this about, by having suggested that the Moabite women seduce their males into promiscuity by sleeping with their women. (Ibn Ezra) An alternate interpretation explaining Bileam’s sudden presence amongst the Midianites: when he had explained to the Moabites that the reason that he was unable to curse these people effectively was because they had been so loyal to their G-d and His Torah, (Numbers 23,21) the Moabites took the hint and succeeded to lead them into sin. Having succeeded in this, they sent Bileam another invitation stressing that now he could curse them effectively. He followed their advice and was killed as a result.

His reward in full… One can explain משלם literally as meaning “in full.” Consequently, ולא קפחוהו ["without stinting"] would mean that they did not deduct anything for him, rather they paid him in full for the evil that he had done to them. Alternatively one could explain it as משלם ["from their own'] with a segol under the [letter] shin and a kammatz under the [letter] lamed, meaning, “From that which belongs to the nations,” i.e. the sword was given to them. Since he took up the craft of Yisroel [so they confronted him…] as Rashi explains below.

טירתם means the place of their scribes (notarii) — a term which is denoting the dwelling-place of their priests, those well acquainted with their laws (cf. Siphre). Another explanation is that it means the place of their princes, just as “the lords of the Philistines” (I Samuel 6:4) is translated in the Targum by “the טורני of the Philistines” (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

Ministers. For סרני is the same as שרים ["ministers"] and it is rendered by Targum as טורני. Thus, we see that טורני means ministers. Furthermore, טורני is related to טירותם which [therefore] means the place where ministers sit. According to the last reason alone there is the difficulty that it should have written טורנות, and according to the first reason there is the difficulty that it should have written נוטרותן. Therefore, Rashi brings both reasons.

V. 10. את כל עריהם במושבתם. Habakuk 3, 7 heißt es: ירגזון יריעות ארץ מדין, woraus zu schließen wäre, dass die Midjaniten nach Nomadenart unter Zeltteppichen wohnten. Ein ähnliches scheint sich aus Richter 6, 5 zu ergeben, wo sie, allerdings mit Anschluss anderer Völker, mit ihren Zelten, Herden und Kamelen, das jüdische Land überzogen. Vergl. auch daselbst 7, 12; 8, 21 u. 24, wo sie als ישמעאלים charakterisiert werden, worunter doch wohl Nomadenvölker zu verstehen sind. Wenn demnach hier von ihren Städten und Burgen gesprochen wird, so müssen sie wohl, obgleich überwiegend als Nomaden lebend, doch auch in Städten sesshaft gewesen sein, und erklärte sich damit die Beifügung: במושבתם zu עריהם, die Städte waren da, wo sie, obgleich sonst Nomaden, doch auch feste Wohnsitze hatten, wohin sie sich zu Zeiten zurückzogen. ואת כל טירתם (siehe Bereschit 25, 16). Zugleich sehen wir auch dort, dass die ישמעאלים doch auch feste Plätze hatten.

ויקחו את כל השלל AND THEY TOOK ALL THE SPOIL…[AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO MOSES] — This tells us that they were pious and righteous men and were not suspected of robbery by stretching out their hand against the spoil without permission, for it is said, “they took all the spoil … [and brought it to Moses]” (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5). About them it is expressed in the traditional literature (Songs 6:6): “They teeth are like a flock of ewes … [whereof all are perfect]’ — i.e., even thy soldiers are all righteous (see Rashi Songs 4:2)

ואת כל המלקוח באדם ובבהמה, “and all the captives, humans and animals.” Whenever the Torah does not mention the words שבי and מלקוח separately, the former refers to human captives, the latter to animals captured. When only the expression מלקוח is used it includes both humans and animals. (Rashi and Ibn Ezra).

The plunder of moveable property. As Rashi explains later (v. 32) on the words, “In addition to the בז ["plunder"] that was taken” that this refers to “what remained after the plunder of moveable property that the warriors plundered for themselves.” This implies that the plunder remained in their possession while the moveable property consisting of ornaments ["booty"] did not. For, this [booty] was brought before Hashem as it is written (v. 50). “We have therefore brought an offering for Hashem…” Thus one is forced to say that בז ["plunder"] refers to non-ornamental moveable property. Re’m writes: However, I do not know from where Rashi learned this, for it would have been more appropriate to say that [שלל "booty"] includes all moveable property, given that the plunder as a whole was divided into שלל ["booty"] and מלקוח ["spoil"]. It appears that Rashi also held that when it is written כל השלל [all the booty"] it includes everything, whether it was ornamental or not. However Rashi wishes to explain why sometimes Scripture calls it שלל ["booty"] and sometimes Scripture calls it בז ["plunder"]. Furthermore, why is it not written (in v. 32), “The spoil was in addition to the שלל ["booty"] that was taken…”? Rather, one must say that here שלל refers to ornamental moveable property, while בז refers to non-ornamental moveable property

VV. 11 u. 12. ויקחו וגו׳. Hier wird die gesamte Kriegserrungenschaft שלל und מלקח genannt, im folgenden Verse wird noch שבי von מלקח unterschieden. Wir haben schon Bereschit 19, 8 auf die Verwandtschaft von שלל mit צלל ,סלל ,ולל hingewiesen. Der gemeinschaftliche Grundbegriff ist: etwas einem Bereiche entziehen. Daher wohnt der Wurzel ”שלל“ nicht einmal notwendig das Merkmal des Gewaltsamen bei, und Ruth 2, 16 wird damit das absichtliche Fallenlassen von den Garbenhaufen angehörigen Ähren zur Vermehrung der Armenlese bezeichnet. Die Ähre wird auch dem Bereiche des Ackereigentümers, aber mit dessen Bewilligung, entzogen. Allgemein wird mit שלל alles durch Kriegserfolg Erbeutete, also dem bisher berechtigten Eigentümer Entzogene bezeichnet, auch die lebenden Tiere, wie זה שלל דוד (Sam. I. 30, 28). Neben מלקח bezeichnet שלל die leblose Beute, מלקח aber die lebendige, als solche, die nur durch festhalten im "Griff" bei dem neuen Herrn bleibt, hier: Tiere und Menschen. שבי bezeichnet aber speziell die kriegsgefangenen Menschen. שבה, verwandt mit צבא ,צבה, ספח ,(משפחה ,שפחה) שפח ,שבע ,שבע, bezeichnet die Vergrößerung seines persönlichen Machtbereichs durch Aufgehen der Persönlichkeit eines andern in dasselbe — (שבח: die Oualitätenfülle eines Objekts, meist einer Persönlichkeit, aussprechen. Auch: einem das von ihm Angestrebte voll gewähren, ein heftigstes Verlangen beschwichtigen, daher bildlich vom Stillen der Meereswogen: בשוא גליו אתה תשבחם Ps. 89, 10) — שבי ,מלקוח zur Seite wie V. 12, bezieht sich מלקוח auf die Tiere und שבי auf die Menschen.

שלל are movables consisting of clothing and ornaments.

בז is booty of movables that are not ornaments.

מלקוח are men and cattle, but in any passage where שבי is written in association with מלקוח, the term שבי applies to men and מלקוח to cattle alone.

את השבי, human beings;

ויביאו אל משה, “they brought them to Moses.” The Torah compliments the 12,000 men none of whom touched the loot without first having obtained permission to do so. This is what Solomon referred to in Song of Songs 6,6 when he said (concerning the Jewish people) ”your teeth are like a flock of young lambs.” He meant that even the soldiers, i.e. the teeth of the Jewish people are as disciplined as a flock of ewes. They are all righteous (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 4,5).

ואת המלקוח, livestock;

ואת השלל, inert portable objects.

ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן AND MOSES AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST WENT FORTH, because they saw the young men of Israel going out to snatch the spoil (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

אל מחוץ למחנה, so that the returning soldiers would not immediately enter the camp, seeing they had become contaminated through contact with dead Midianites.

They went out to show honor to the army, as is accustomed even today—to give honor to those returning from a war. However, a king does not normally give honor to his subjects in person, and that is why the Sages said: This informs you of Moshe’s humility.

ויצאו משה ואלעזר הכהן, “Moses and the High Priest Elazar went out to welcome back the soldiers (before they reached the camp);”they could not admit them to the camp because having killed human beings they had all become ritually impure and required seven days of purification.

ויקצף משה על פקודי החיל AND MOSES WAS ANGRY WITH THE פקודי החיל — WITH THOSE APPOINTED OVER THE ARMY — This serves to teach you that every misdeed of a generation is attributed to the leaders since these have the power to protest (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:5).

ויקצוף על פקודי החיל, “He was angry at the commanders of the troops.” He did not display anger at Pinchas seeing that Hashem Himself had granted him the covenant of peace.

V. 14. פקודי החיל, sind diejenigen, denen die Heeresmacht als Leitern anvertraut war, die also deren Heereshandlungen zu leiten hatten und dafür verantwortlich waren.

שרי האלפים ושרי המאות, “the chiefs of thousands and the chiefs of hundreds.” A total of 132 men. The verse teaches that misconduct by the common people is always blamed on their leaders, the ones who have the authority and power to stop such misconduct by the people and who fail to do so (Sifri on our verse).

?!החיים כל נקבה. Although it was a rule that in all wars not involving the seven Canaanite nations women, children, and livestock would be spared as we know from Deuteronomy 20,14, these soldiers should have at least killed the women whom they personally knew, seeing it had been the women who had caused the death of 24.000 Israelites by seducing them. [we have no evidence that any Midianite women seduced the Israelites with the exception of Cosbi, a Midianite princess. Numbers 25,1 reports only about sexual misconduct with the Moabite women. Ed.]

כל נקבה, “any female;”(among the prisoners taken); this is not the only time when the word כל, does not mean: “each” or “all;” we have other examples such as in Exodus 20,10: לא תעשה כל מלאכה, ”do not perform any menial work;” or Exodus 22,21: כל אלמנה ויתום, “any widow or orphan.” There are quite a few more examples that could be cited.

הן הנה BEHOLD, THESE [WERE AN ENTICEMENT TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — These: this word tells us that they recognised them, saying, ‘This is the woman through whom so-and-so fell into sin” (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785).

הן הנה….בדבר בלעם, "these are the very ones…in the affair with Bileam, etc." We must try and understand what Moses meant when he referred to "these are the very ones, etc." Besides, why was Moses so long-winded in his reference to Bileam and (subsequently) to פעור. The matter will become clear once we understand why both Pinchas and the pious people who had gone with him committed such an error.

V. 16. הן ,הן הנה wie הן נזבח (Schmot 8, 22). היו לבני ישראל vielleicht wie כי תהיה לאיש זר. (Wajikra 22, 12) הייתי הלילה לאיש (Ruth I, 12), sie haben sich den Söhnen Israels hingegeben, um ihnen Untreue an Gott in Händen zu geben, um Peors willen, d. h. um dem Gotte der Unzucht zuzufallen.

בדבר בלעם למסור מעל, “to break faith (with G-d) through Bileam’s counsel;” he had taught these women how to lead the Israelites into grievous sin. (see verse 18 for details)

בדבר בלעם [THESE WERE AN ENTICEMENT] THROUGH THE WORD OF BALAAM — He had said to them: Even if you bring together all the hosts that are in the world you cannot overcome them. Are you perhaps more numerous than the Egyptians who had six hundred chosen chariots? Come and I will give you counsel: Their God has a hatred of immorality, etc., as it is related in the chapter חלק (Sanhedrin 106a) and in Sifrei Bamidbar 157:6.

Pinchas and his colleagues reasoned that the women who had played temptresses at the time had acted under duress, only carrying out their husbands' orders. Unmarried girls were similarly under duress having been ordered by their fathers to do whatever they had done to seduce the Israelites. Accordingly, Pinchas did not think that these women were guilty of death. Moses appreciated the considerations which had prompted Pinchas and his soldiers. This is why he pointed out that Pinchas and his colleagues would have been correct if the only thing these women had been guilty of was to cause the Israelites to indulge in illicit sex. However, in addition to their carrying out their husbands' and their fathers' orders respectively, they had committed another sin, one which they committed out of their own free will, namely that of Peor, i.e. getting the Israelites to worship that deity. According to Bamidbar Rabbah 20,23 these women prevailed on the Israelites to perform acts of obeisance to the image of Peor before letting them indulge their carnal desires. For this sin they were guilty of death, and this is what Moses referred to when he said הן הנה, i.e. they themselves (without outside pressure) initiated this part of the seduction. בדבר בלעם, at the instigation of Bileam, i.e. through the advice of Bileam to have the women offer themselves as sexual partners to the Israelites. If you examine the writings of our sages on the subject you will find that they attribute to Bileam only the advice that the Israelites be seduced sexually. Bileam never said that these women were to seduce the Israelites to worship or appear to worship any idols. By refusing to sleep with the Israelites unless the latter had first performed an act of idolatry, these women were guilty of the מעל בשם, the trespass against the Eternal G'd which our verse speaks about.

וכל אשה ידעת איש AND EVERY WOMAN WHO KNOWS MAN — i.e., who is fitted for cohabitation, even though she has never experienced it (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:6). As a test they made them (the women) pass in front of the Golden Plate, and if anyone was fitted for cohabitation her face turned green (Yevamot 60b).

ועתה הדגו….הדוגו. "and now kill!…..kill." Why did the Torah have to repeat the command to kill separately for young male Midianites and for females who were no longer virgins? Sifri quotes Rabbi Yishmael as saying that the second הרוגו was necessary to separate this verse from the following verse. Had the Torah not written this word in between I would have understood the words וכל אשה in our verse as capable of referring either to what is written in verse 18 or to what is written in our verse. This seems problematical. If Rabbi Yishmael were correct, why did the Torah not interpose a statement such as החיו לכם, "keep alive for yourselves," as it did at the end of verse 18? If the Torah had done this there would have been no need to write the word הרוגו twice! Perhaps the Torah was afraid to write החיו לכם at this juncture as it would have appeared then that Moses commanded the Israelites to keep these Midianite virgins alive. Actually, Moses only gave permission to keep them alive. This is why the words וכל הטף introduced verse 18 to inform the Israelites of the status of these survivors, not to order them to keep these people alive.

Capable of intimate relations. Such as a girl aged three years and one day. Anyone younger than this is not capable of intimate relations.

VV. 17 u.18. Da mit diesem Akt dem Verpflanzen heidnisch unzüchtiger Elemente in Israel vorgebeugt werden sollte, so müssen wir annehmen, dass die nationale Entartung wesentlich im männlichen Geschlechte wurzele, das weibliche Geschlecht aber, wenn in früher Kindheit unlauteren Einflüssen und Eindrücken entzogen, des vollen Eingehens in reine Sittlichkeit fähig bleibe. Ähnlich wird Dewarim 23, 4 hinsichtlich der Aufnahme von Ammonitern und Moabitern zwischen dem männlichen und weiblichen Geschlechte unterschieden; während das erstere ausgeschlossen ist, ist dem weiblichen die Aufnahme בקהל ד׳ selbst in reiferen Jahren gestattet.

!וכל אשה יודעת איש למשכב זכר הרוגו, “and kill any woman that has known a man by having carnal relations with him!”Rashi questions why the Torah had to repeat the command: “kill” in this verse. He bases himself on Sifri, item 157, where it is explained that without this repetition wemight have misunderstood due to the Torah also having stated that certain categories of females were allowed to live. In other words, we would not have known if to understand the word: כל as “each” or as “any.” The repetition makes it clear that the meaning is: “any.”An alternate explanation for why the word: הרוגו, “Kill!” had to be repeated at the end of this verse. If any woman old enough had to be killed even though she was still a virgin, surely a woman who had already experienced carnal relations would have had to be killed also! We have a rule that logic is not sufficient to allow us to apply a penalty to someone guilty of such. Therefore the Torah had to spell out that such women had to be killed, and we could not simply use our logic to act upon in such a case. If you were to reason that the Torah could have avoided using this word at the beginning of the verse and written as follows: 'ועתה כל זכר וכל אשה יודעת איש וגו, “and therefore now, every male and every woman who has had carnal knowledge of a man, etc.,” the problem we would have had if the Torah had written this would be that we might have thought that as long as a minor male, not yet capable of indulging his libido, would not become liable to death until he had done so. We would have to deliberately present him with this opportunity in order to justify executing him and his partner. Considering all this, the Torah wrote: ועתה הרגו כל זכר בטף, “therefore kill now every male amongst the children,” i.e. immediately, without waiting, and kill every female if examination proves that she is no longer a virgin, seeing that this is proof that she had carnal knowledge of a male.

הרגו [AND EVERY WOMAN THAT MAY KNOW MAN] … KILL — Why does it say this word again after having used it in the first half of the sentence? It is to show where the pause comes in the paragraph. So is the opinion of R. Ishmael (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:6). For if I read (omitting the word הֲרֹגוּ‎),‎ הרגו כל זכר בטף וכל אשה ידעת איש‎ ... וכל הטף בנשים וגו׳ ‎ “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones … and every woman … and all the little ones among the women … keep alive”, I would not know whether they were to kill “every woman” together with the “males among the little ones” or were to keep them alive together with the “little ones among the women’. On this account הרגו is stated (added) at the end of the verse.

Even if she never actually had relations. Because if it were not so, the verses would apparently be contradictory. For it is written, “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” which implies that only an adult who had relations [was executed], but an adult who had not had relations would be kept alive. [Also that] a minor whether she had relations or not would be kept alive. Then it is written (v. 18) “All the children among the females without intimate knowledge of a man, keep alive for yourselves.” This implies specifically a minor who had not had relations, but a minor who had relations, or an adult whether she had relations or not would be killed. Consequently, the first and second verses are apparently contradictory. Therefore Rashi was forced to explain “capable…”

We also need to understand the word הרגו at the beginning of verse 17. Why did the Torah not content itself with the word הרוגו at the end of this verse? Perhaps the Torah wanted to write the words ועתה הרגו together to teach the people that the rehabilitation of the nation which had been the objective of the whole campaign could not be achieved until the people mentioned in our verse had been killed. The sooner this would be accomplished, i.e. ועתה, "now," the sooner would the Israelites be completely rehabilitated concerning the sin at Shittim. Alternatively, the Torah may have wanted to write together the words הרגו לטף on the one hand and הרוגו לאשה, to indicate that we are dealing with two separate commandments. Or, the words simply allude to the fact that these people should be executed forthwith, i.e. ועתה.

For when I read… “And all the children among the females.” You might ask: If so [that we might assume they were kept alive], why is it necessary to write (v. 18), “All the children among the females without intimate knowledge of a man, keep alive for yourselves”? For now even a woman who had intimate knowledge of a man was kept alive, so certainly who had not, was kept alive. Rather, we see that since the verse needed to write, “And all the children among the females without intimate knowledge [of a man], keep alive for yourselves,” [it implies] that a woman who had intimate knowledge of a man was killed. One might say that Scripture had to write, “All the children among the females…” because if it had not I would not know whether “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” referred to someone who was capable of intimate relations, even though they had not had relations, or perhaps only to one who actually had relations. For the reason why we establish it as referring to someone capable of having relations is because otherwise the verses are apparently contradictory, as explained. Re’m answers in a different vein.

This is why “[you must] execute” is said. You might ask: Nonetheless, why is it necessary to write “Now execute every male” at the beginning of the verse? The answer is that if it had not written “execute” referring to the males in the beginning of the verse, I would have said that regarding them there was also a difference between someone capable of intimate relations, [i.e.] an adult, and someone who was incapable, [i.e.] a minor. Therefore, the verse said “now execute” in every case. Mahari answers that if it had not written “execute” the implication of the verse would be that we expound “every woman” with reference to that which is written afterwards. Now, once it refers to the section afterwards we would reverse our logic [as follows]: We would say that if it had only written, “Every woman with intimate knowledge of a man” but it had not written about the children, I would not have used a kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) to learn that they be kept alive. For I would have said that since she was capable of intimate relations but did not engage in relations, therefore she was kept alive, because she was capable of causing Yisroel to sin but did not do so. However, regarding the children, who were not capable of intimate relations, they have no merit to be kept them alive. Therefore, the Torah wrote “execute” in order to separate [the two].

החיו לכם, "keep alive for yourselves." The meaning is that those who were allowed to live should convert to Judaism and only when they were Jewish would they qualify for the description חיים, "to be alive," as then they would be allowed to get married and to remain "alive" by means of the children they would bear.

'וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו איש וגו, “but any children among the women who have not had carnal knowledge, etc.” you shall let live for your benefit. This formulation prompted Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai to state that a female convert who has not attained the age of three years and a day, is fit to marry a priest. [as she could not have been contaminated through carnal intercourse] (Sifri on this verse)

מחוץ למחנה [AND ABIDE YE] OUTSIDE THE CAMP — This means that they should not enter the forecourt of the Sanctuary (the מחנה שכינה cf. Rashi on 5:2).

WHOSOEVER HATH KILLED ANY PERSON, AND WHOSOEVER HATH TOUCHED ANY SLAIN, [PURIFY YOURSELVES ON THE THIRD DAY AND ON THE SEVENTH DAY]. “Rabbi Meir says: Scripture is speaking about someone who killed with an object which is susceptible of impurity, and the verse [here] teaches you that the object [i.e., the weapon] renders the person impure through [indirect] contact with the corpse as if he had touched the corpse itself.⁸²The implication is that the sword is itself “a progenitor of fathers of impurity” like the corpse, and the person who touches the sword becomes a “father of impurity,” who is rendered impure and may not enter the Divine camp for seven days. See above, Seder Chukath, Note 40. I might think that even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him [the same law applies]; Scripture therefore says, and whosoever hath killed any person [and whosoever hath touched any slain].⁸³Verse 19. Thus it compares a person who kills to a person who touches. Just as he who touches [is rendered impure] by virtue of that contact [with the corpse], so is the person who kills [rendered impure] by virtue of his contact [with the corpse, effected through the weapon he holds in his hand, which contact is non-existent when he shoots an arrow and kills him].” Thus far is the language of Rashi.
But his words are not clear to me. For if he killed with an object which is susceptible to impurity but can be [made pure] by immersion,⁸⁴This term includes all vessels except those made of earthenware, which, once rendered impure, cannot be purified by immersion in a ritual pool or by any other means. All other vessels can be so purified. then the person touching it does not contract the seven-day period of impurity, nor does he require the sprinkling [of the waters of purification], since the object [with which he killed] becomes “a father of impurity,”⁸⁵See above, Seder Chukath, Note 40, for an explanation of this subject. and the person who becomes impure through it, becomes a “first degree of impurity” [who is only required to immerse himself in a ritual pool and he becomes pure the evening of that same day; and since the verse here requires a seven-day period of impurity, it cannot be referring to such a case]. And if [he killed him] with a metal instrument, we have already been taught⁸⁶Above 19:16. See Ramban there. that a sword [or any metal object with which a person is killed] is exactly the same degree of impurity as the dead person himself,⁸²The implication is that the sword is itself “a progenitor of fathers of impurity” like the corpse, and the person who touches the sword becomes a “father of impurity,” who is rendered impure and may not enter the Divine camp for seven days. See above, Seder Chukath, Note 40. and therefore conveys a seven-days’ impurity [to anyone who touches it, so there is no need for our verse to repeat this principle]. And if the Rabbi [Rashi] is of the opinion that since he [the killer] touched the instrument whilst it was itself still in contact with the corpse [then even if it was not a metal object] it renders him impure for a seven-day period just as [if he had touched] the corpse itself — such [conveyance of a stricter degree of] impurity through [indirect] contact is only a law of the Rabbis when the contact is that of objects with a corpse, as is explained in Tractate Neziruth, Chapter Shloshah Minim.⁸⁷Literally: “Three things” [the opening words of that particular chapter of the Tractate]. The text referred to here is found in Nazir 42b: “But is [the law that the corpse conveys] impurity [to a human being] by contact [with an object which touches the corpse at the same time as touching the human being] a Scriptural law? [It is only a law of the Rabbis!] “It is obvious, therefore, that the Scriptural verses here cannot be speaking of such a case. Hence Rashi’s comment “that the verse [here] teaches you that the object renders the person impure through contact etc.” cannot be the correct explanation of this verse.
But the language of the Rabbis in the Sifre is as follows:⁸⁸Sifre, Chukath 127. “Rabbi Meir says: Scripture is speaking about someone who killed with an object which is susceptible to impurity, and [teaches us that] it conveys impurity by moving [the corpse, as will be explained further on]. Or I might think that even if he shot an arrow at him and killed him [the same law applies]; Scripture therefore says etc.”⁸⁹“And whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain. Thus it compares etc. “[as quoted by Ramban from Rashi’s commentary]. And the meaning of [this Sifre] is that Rabbi Meir came to deduce from here [the principle] that a human corpse conveys impurity when carried. Thus if he killed him with a walking-stick or a spear, even if it did not consist of metal, and he was “carried,” [i.e., the slain person was moved] through them,⁹⁰This is known as tumath heset — “the impurity caused by shaking” an impure object [such as n’veilah, or a human corpse] so as to move it from its place. Such movement, even if done in an indirect manner, is sufficient to convey impurity, just as if it had been carried directly. at the time of death, the corpse conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration to the person who “carried” [i.e., moved] it. And when [using the phrase] “an object which is susceptible to impurity,” Rabbi Meir was not referring to a vessel which forms a receptacle [and is therefore susceptible to impurity] but to an object through which the person receives impurity [directly] from the corpse itself,⁹¹In other words, Rabbi Meir’s statement [quoted by Rashi] does not refer to a vessel forming a receptacle but to an object through which the person becomes impure from the corpse itself by shifting or shaking it, even if the person did not touch or carry the corpse at all, since causing an impure object to move or to shake is subject to the same law as carrying it. This interpretation of Rabbi Meir’s meaning is made clear by the first part of the Beraitha, which Ramban now brings, and which Rashi did not quote. Ramban in conclusion proceeds to explain that although the anonymous opinion in the first part of the Beraitha agrees with Rabbi Meir on the main principle referred to here, that causing a corpse to move also conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration — they disagree on the process of reasoning which establishes this principle, as Ramban explains. such as by “carrying” [i.e., moving it]. And the beginning of this Beraitha there [in the Sifre] states as follows:⁸⁸Sifre, Chukath 127. “Whence do we know that it [a corpse] conveys impurity by shaking it? You make use of a kal vachomer:⁹²The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. If a dead animal that conveys a non-stringent form of impurity [since it conveys impurity only until the evening of the same day] nonetheless conveys impurity by being moved, is it not logical that a human corpse that conveys a stringent form of impurity [i.e., an impurity of seven-days’ duration] should convey impurity by being moved! But if so [you might argue] that just as there, the impurity conveyed [by moving the dead animal] is only until the evening, so here also [in the case of the human corpse], the impurity conveyed [by moving or shaking it] is only until the evening [of that day ! You must say that this cannot be so. Rather,] you must say that the law of moving it is the same as touching it. Where touching [the source of impurity] renders one impure for a seven-days’ duration [as does touching a corpse], so also does moving it render one impure for a seven-days’ duration, and where touching renders one only impure until the evening [as does touching a dead animal], moving it also renders one impure only until the evening. Rabbi Meir says etc.” From here then, the meaning of the Beraitha becomes apparent, as we have explained it above:⁹¹In other words, Rabbi Meir’s statement [quoted by Rashi] does not refer to a vessel forming a receptacle but to an object through which the person becomes impure from the corpse itself by shifting or shaking it, even if the person did not touch or carry the corpse at all, since causing an impure object to move or to shake is subject to the same law as carrying it. This interpretation of Rabbi Meir’s meaning is made clear by the first part of the Beraitha, which Ramban now brings, and which Rashi did not quote. Ramban in conclusion proceeds to explain that although the anonymous opinion in the first part of the Beraitha agrees with Rabbi Meir on the main principle referred to here, that causing a corpse to move also conveys impurity of seven-days’ duration — they disagree on the process of reasoning which establishes this principle, as Ramban explains. Thus the First Sage [i.e., the anonymous Sage of the first part of the Sifre] deduced from a kal vachomer⁹²The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. the principle that carrying [or moving] a corpse [without touching it] conveys impurity even for a seven-days’ duration, because he does not adopt [the principle of] dayo,⁹³Literally: “It is sufficient.” This means that it is “sufficient” for a law to be derived by logical conclusion from another law to be only as strict as that law, but it cannot be stricter than the law from which it is derived. Thus, in the case before us, the law that causing a corpse to move conveys impurity, is derived — according to the First Sage of the Beraitha — from the law causing a dead animal to move. Hence if we apply the principle of dayo we must conclude that the impurity conveyed to one by causing a corpse to move is only as strict as causing a dead animal to move, namely, until the same evening. But since the anonymous First Sage recorded in the first half of the Beraitha clearly states that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity, it is clear that he does not accept the principle of dayo. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir who accepts this principle of dayo, cannot therefore derive the law that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity from the kal vachomer of the law of causing a dead animal to move. Hence he derives it from our verse which expressly likens the law of causing a corpse to move with that of touching it, in which latter case the impurity conveyed is that of a seven-days’ duration. This is the gist of Ramban’s explanation. whereas Rabbi Meir derived it from this verse [before us], because since he follows the principle of dayo,⁹³Literally: “It is sufficient.” This means that it is “sufficient” for a law to be derived by logical conclusion from another law to be only as strict as that law, but it cannot be stricter than the law from which it is derived. Thus, in the case before us, the law that causing a corpse to move conveys impurity, is derived — according to the First Sage of the Beraitha — from the law causing a dead animal to move. Hence if we apply the principle of dayo we must conclude that the impurity conveyed to one by causing a corpse to move is only as strict as causing a dead animal to move, namely, until the same evening. But since the anonymous First Sage recorded in the first half of the Beraitha clearly states that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity, it is clear that he does not accept the principle of dayo. On the other hand, Rabbi Meir who accepts this principle of dayo, cannot therefore derive the law that causing a corpse to move conveys a seven-days’ duration of impurity from the kal vachomer of the law of causing a dead animal to move. Hence he derives it from our verse which expressly likens the law of causing a corpse to move with that of touching it, in which latter case the impurity conveyed is that of a seven-days’ duration. This is the gist of Ramban’s explanation. therefore he cannot derive it by a kal vachomer⁹²The syllogism of “a minor and major” [a fortiori argument]. See Ramban, Vol. II, p. 133, Note 208. [from dead animals], as is stated in Tractate Baba Kamma, Chapter Keitzad Haregel.⁹⁴Baba Kamma 25a. — The heading of the chapter means literally: “How is the leg” of a beast an attested danger. The Gemara there records a difference of opinion among the Sages of the Mishnah whether we accept the principle of dayo, although Rabbi Meir’s name is not specifically mentioned.

ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה...אתם ושביכם, ”as for you, encamp outside the camp, etc., you and your captives.” Also the captives were required to purify their garments that might have been in contact with the people slain during that campaign [after they were dead, of course. Ed.] All the clothing or vessels made of cloth or hide that were in their possession was subject to the same halachic restrictions as if they had belonged to Israelites in the first place. This was in order that these possessions in turn should not be capable of contaminating things belonging to the Israelites. This verse enables us to answer the question raised by everybody, why, after the wars against Sichon and Og when an immense amount of loot was captured, did Moses not already command these procedures of purification that the loot had to undergo. Granted that seeing those nations had been part of the seven Canaanite nations, concerning which in the wars against them even pig’s meat had become permitted, there was no need to purify their pots if even the contents of these pots had been permitted. (Compare ואכלת את שלל אויביך, “you may eat the loot captured from your enemies” Deut. 20,14). The Midianites not being Canaanites, the relaxation of these rules of ritual contamination did not apply to them. Yet another answer to the question raised above, technical in nature, is that when such captured vessels have not been used for over 24 hours, any residue of food remaining in them is presumed to have become repulsive and certainly would not enhance the taste of anything cooked or baked in them now. Therefore, anyone eating from such vessels would not derive any benefit from the forbidden ingredients, the principal reason why these are forbidden. In this instance, the survivors who had been taken prisoners, had still been using their vessels on the way to where the Israelites were encamped, so that the fact that the remnants of food therein had already made the vessels repulsive did not apply. This is also why the Torah did not have to warn that anyone touching a dead body had become ritually contaminated and required seven days of remaining outside the camp of the Levites while undergoing purification rites. This law was well known, but seeing that this legislation was applied for the first time to gentiles, (captives) the Torah reiterated the laws [so that the gentiles would not feel discriminated against? Ed.] Seeing that only 2% of the people had been involved in the campaign it was important to issue the warning that they must not come into contact with their families until after they had completed the purification rites. The reason why these restrictions were not announced in the wars against Sichon and Og, was that when most or all the people have become ritually contaminated many laws of ritual contamination do not apply. [How can you exile most of the population from their homes for a week? Ed.] Seeing that in this instance only 2% of the arms-bearing men took part, things were different.

ואתם חנו מחוץ למחנה, “as for you, encamp outside the camp, etc.” The returning soldiers were forbidden to enter the courtyard of the Tabernacle in their present condition out of regard for the Shechinah which was present there.

So that they would not enter the Sanctuary courtyard. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Surely someone defiled by a corpse is even permitted to enter the Levite camp, so why does it state, “You shall remain outside the camp”? He answers that “camp” refers to the Sanctuary courtyard.

V. 19. ואתם וגו׳ (siehe Kap. 5, 2 u. 3 und 19, 11 f.). אתם ושביכם. Als נכריות konnten die Gefangenen nicht מקבל טומאה sein. טומאה beginnt erst mit der Beziehung des Menschen zum jüdischen Gesetzesheiligtum, zu שביכם .מקדש וקדשיו, die Gefangenen wurden daher erst טומאה-empfänglich לאחר שנתגיירו, ein Akt, der bei vielen sofort geschehen sein konnte. Da ferner כלי מתכות, nach einer Auffassung sogar alle בלים mit Ausschluss von כלי חרס, durch Berührung einer Leiche אבי אבות werden und den Menschen, der sie berührt, zum הזיה-bedürftigen אב הטומאה machen, so konnten שביכם, nachdem sie גרים geworden waren, durch Berührung eines solchen כלי der הזיה bedürftig geworden sein.

ואתם חנו חוץ למחנה, “as for you, meanwhile make camp outside the camp of the Israelites;” even though someone contaminated through contact with a corpse is not even permitted to stay within the camp of the ordinary Israelites but even in the area allocated to the Levites, these soldiers did not want to avail themselves of this rule. They were afraid that through physical contact they might cause other people to become ritually impure. There were so many people in the camp that they were unable to not inadvertently touch some of them. As their ritual status was the one called av hatumah, primary source of ritual impurity, this meant that people or vessels touching them would immediately contract a secondary level of impurity at least.

כל הרג נפש WHOSOEVER HATH KILLED A PERSON — Rabbi Meir said: Scripture is speaking of one who killed a person with a weapon receptive of uncleanness, and Scripture teaches you that “a vessel“ (any object) makes a man unclean through the connection thus formed with the corpse just as though he were actually in contact with the corpse itself. Or perhaps one might think that even though he had shot an arrow and killed him (in which case he was not “connected” by means of the arrow with the man he killed) he was to remain outside the camp as being unclean. It, however, says immediately afterwards “and whosoever hath touched anyone slain”; it compares the person who kills to one who touches a slain person. How is it in the case of one who touches a corpse? He becomes unclean in consequence of the connection with it! So, too, one who kills becomes unclean only through some connection with it (the corpse) (Sifrei Bamidbar 127:1 on Numbers 19:16).

YE AND YOUR CAPTIVES. [This means that] the captives also have to purify their garments⁹⁵Since the captives were non-Jews to whom the laws of ritual impurity do not apply, the question arises: why Moses said: purify yourselves … ye ‘and your captives?’ Ramban therefore explains that this refers to their garments, as explained in the text. which touched the slain, and every garment and every vessel of skin⁹⁶Verse 20. which were in their possession, just as was the law with regard to the Israelites, in order that they would not defile the people with their garments and their vessels.

כל הורג נפש, “anyone who had killed a person, etc.” it was presumed that he had touched the slain person with his weapon, seeing that the sword confers the same degree of ritual impurity as the corpse itself. The verse therefore excludes people who had killed by shooting arrows and had not subsequently touched the corpse (Sifri Chukat 127).

That a utensil defiles … as if he had touched the corpse itself. Rashi wishes to answer the question: “Whoever has killed a person” also implies the case where one did not touch him. However, if one shot an arrow and killed him, or killed with a simple wooden utensil that is incapable of receiving contamination, why would he become be defiled?

תתחטאו, “become purified” Rashi explains that the means of purification was the same as if they had become contaminated by contact with a Jewish corpse, although there are opinions that a gentile corpse does not confer ritual impurity on a Jew. This opinion refers only to impurity conferred by being in the same covered airspace with the corpse. All authorities agree that physical contact with the corpse of a gentile does confer ritual impurity on that Jew. The disagreement revolves around the word אדם, whether it could be applied to gentiles. (Compare Ezekiel 34,31) The situations in which this type of ritual impurity occurs are spelled out in Numbers 19,16 as being: “physical contact with someone slain by the sword, death by natural causes, or contact with a grave or human bone,” as requiring a purification period of seven consecutive days. Seeing that this verse does not mention being in the same tent as the dead body or limb, as did verse 14 there, the fact that separate verses are used, supports the opinion that verse 16 applies also to gentile corpses.

תתחטאו PURIFY YOURSELVES by means of the waters of sprinkling, as is the law in the case of other people who have become unclean by reason of a corpse. For even according to the opinion of those who say that the graves of heathens do not render Israelites unclean if they are under the same tent (roof) with them (i.e. the graves), because it is said, (Ezekiel 34:31) “And ye, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men”, which is explained to mean: You alone come under the term “men” (Yevamot 61a) — even such will admit that the corpses of heathens render an Israelite unclean through contact with and through carrying them, because the term אדם, man, is only used in reference to uncleanness caused by a “tent”, since it states, (Numbers 19:14) “If a man (אדם) die in a tent".

תתחטאו, “purify yourselves!” By means of the ash of the red cow mixed with the water designated for the procedure. Although Gentiles (their corpses) do not confer ritual impurity on a Jew when both are in the same covered airspace at the same time, contact with the corpse of a Gentile does transfer such impurity.

Since “man” was only said in the context of tent contamination. You might ask: Surely concerning [contamination through] touching it also writes “man” in Parshas Chukas, where it is written (19:13), “Whoever touches a corpse of a man’s soul.” See Tosafos Bava Kamma 38a where you will find an explanation for all the verses in which gentiles are also termed “man.”

ביום השלישי וביום השביעי “on the third day and the seventh day;” The Torah here stresses the ritual to be performed while purifying themselves when unclean due to having killed Midianites, although it did not do so when the Israelite soldiers killed the members of the Canaanite nations during the war of conquest under the leadership of Joshua. The reason is that only 12000 soldiers were involved in the campaign against the Midianites, whereas the entire male population was involved in the war of conquest, and we know from the Talmud that when the majority of the people are in a state of ritual uncleanness due to contact with corpses, the restrictions applying to people in such a condition are waived. During wartime even the most repugnant gentile foods etc., are permitted to be eaten by the soldiers when this ensures that they have sufficient nourishment. The same was true even for the civilian population immediately after the conquest of the land of Canaan, as the Torah refers to the people having been given “houses fully stocked with the necessities of life,” i.e. unless they were allowed to use them, why would the Torah describe them as a “gift” from G-d? (Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 17, based on Deuteronomy 6,11.) In contrast to the wars of conquest in Canaan, the 12000 soldiers conducting the punitive expedition against Midian, campaign which was primarily a religious war, were not allowed to take advantage of what would be permitted during the wars of conquest for the whole nation. They remained bound by all the laws governing personal purity, and this is why they had to undergo the purification rites on the third and seventh day as indicated here. The fact that they did not sustain a single casualty during that campaign is evidence of the different nature of that campaign. Moreover, the cause of the campaign had been the fact that meant thousands of Israelites had contaminated themselves spiritually, by worshipping the Baal Peor. (Numbers 25,3). The soldiers from the punitive campaign undergoing a purification ritual therefore also had a symbolic significance, seeing that not every soldier may have been involved in killing a Midianite. Therefore, even if there was only a doubt about their having touched a Midianite corpse, the Torah decreed the purification process.

אתם ושביכם [PURIFY] BOTH YOURSELVES AND YOUR CAPTIVES — Not that heathens are receptive of uncleanness and therefore require sprinkling, but such captives are intended as are of the same category as yourselves. What is the case with you yourselves? You are people in covenant with God! So, too, your captives when they come into the covenant with God, if they become unclean they require sprinkling (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:7).

אתם ושביכם, “you and your captives.” When the captives would become proselytes and they become ritually impure they require purification rites including being sprinkled with the ash of the red cow.

They will require sprinkling. [Meaning that] this verse was also said for subsequent generations. This is also holds true for the entire passage of purging utensils.

וכל מעשה עזים AND EVERYTHING MADE FROM GOATS — everything: this serves to include objects made from the horns, claws and bones (Chullin 25b).

This includes utensils made from the horns. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why was it necessary to say “Everything made of goat products”? Surely it is written “every leather article.”

V. 20. וכל בגד וגו׳ (siehe Wajikra 11, 32). תתחטאו. Da כל בגד וגו׳ das Objekt des Satzes ist, so kann das Reflexive des תתחטאו nur als Terminativ wie והתנחלתם אותם (Wajikra 25, 46) zu verstehen sein: jedes Gewand usw. habt ihr euch zu entsündigen.

וכל בגד, “and any garment;” as that garment might have touched a Midianite corpse.

ויאמר אלעזר הכהן וגו׳ AND ELEAZAR THE PRIEST SAID etc. — Because Moses fell into anger (Numbers 31:14) he fell into error: there escaped him the laws concerning the removal of uncleanness absorbed by vessels which have contained the food of heathens. This, too, do you find was the case on the eighth day of the installing of the priests, as it is said, (Leviticus 10:16) “And Moses was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar”, — he fell into anger, he fell into error (cf. 10:16 that he made an error regarding the שעיר החטאת which Aaron refused to eat). Similarly, also, when he said, (Numbers 20:10, Numbers 20:11) “Hear, now, ye rebels”, … “he smote the rock”; it was through his anger that he made the mistake (Sifrei Bamidbar 157:9; cf. Pesachim 66b).

זאת חקת התורה, the instructions you have received from Moses concerning your own purification rites, including being sprinkled with water containing ash from the red heifer, is a decree by the Torah. The institution known as פרה אדומה has as its purpose the purification of people afflicted with ritual impurity due to direct or indirect contact with the dead.

ויאמר אלעזר הכהן אל אנשי הצבא, “Eleazar the High Priest said to the soldiers, etc.“ Moses, personally, conveyed the previous paragraph to the respective commanders concerning the ritual contamination of the people involved. Eleazar addressed the entire people who were all directly involved seeing that all received their respective shares of the loot and had to know how to purify the various vessels or garments. The only loot the commanders of 1000 troops each had taken for themselves were costly garments.

He credited the teaching to his master. Meaning that he should not have said that he heard this from his master, instead he should have said it without elaborating, for surely the entire Torah was given through Moshe. Rather, it was in order to relate the matter in the name of the one who said it, as with “And Esther told the king in Mordechai’s name” (Esther 2:22).

V. 21. ויאמר וגו׳ הבאים למלחמה. Da es nicht heißt מן המלחמה, sondern למלחמה, so dürfte dies zu der Annahme berechtigen, es sei die hier folgende Vorschrift nicht erst bei der Rückkehr aus dem Kriege, sondern bei dem Auszuge erteilt worden.

ויאמר אלעזר הכהן, “the High Priest Elazar said:” the reason that it was Elazar who issued the instructions following concerning how to purify the loot, was that it had been he who had prepared the first red heifer whose ashes would be the instrument that made the purification process possible. (Numbers 19,3) Although Moses had instructed him in these procedures, of course, and Elazar had quoted him, he was punished for preempting Moses in revealing what the procedures were to be taken now. The punishment was that we do not find that Joshua again required the services of the High Priest Elazar, although when he had been appointed the Torah had written that “he will stand before Elazar the High Priest,” (Numbers 26,21) suggesting that the latter outranked Joshua. (Talmud tractate Eyruvin, folio 63)

אשר צוה ה׳ וגו׳ [AND ELEAZAR SAID … THIS IS THE ORDINANCE OF THE LAW] WHICH THE LORD HATH COMMANDED [MOSES] — he associated the decision with his teacher (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:9).

זאת חקת התורה (siehe zu Kap. 19, 2).

זאת חקת התורה, “this is the statute of the Torah;” he referred to what Moses had told him in verse 19, that anyone who had killed someone had to undergo the purification rites. The details had all been spelled out in Numbers chapter 19 commencing with verse 13 when the details of the red heifer are discussed.

אך את הזהב וגו׳ ONLY THE GOLD etc. — Eleazar said: Although Moses has only admonished you concerning the laws of uncleanness caused by contact with a corpse, you must further be admonished concerning the laws of removing anything unclean that has been absorbed by vessels. The word אך is a restrictive term — it is as much as to say, “You are restricted from using vessels even after they have been cleansed from uncleanness caused by reason of a corpse until they shall have been cleansed also from what they have absorbed of that flesh which is forbidden as being that of an animal not killed in the proper manner.” And our Rabbis said that the words אך את הזהב are intended to intimate that it is necessary to remove its rust before he does the rite of removing the forbidden food that has been absorbed. This, they say, is the purpose of the term אך, — that there should be no rust there: Only (אך) the metal — it shall be as it should be (the metal without anything else, such as rust) (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785; Rabbenu Asher on Pesachim 30b states that this is to be found in Siphre, but it is missing in our editions of the work).

אך את הזהב, however, metal objects require an additional procedure before they are ritually clean, namely immersion in a ritual bath, (or rinsing in boiling water, or even making it red-hot, depending on how these utensils had been used.)

אך את הזהב, “However, the gold, etc.” Although these vessels had in the meantime undergone purification from the ritual impurity contracted through contact with a corpse or derivative of a corpse, they had to undergo another purification by reason of having been owned by idolaters which confers a different type of impurity upon them. They had to undergo immersion in a ritual bath or more. These vessels had absorbed residue from foods forbidden to Jews, i.e. animals which had not died by ritual slaughter or had not been fit to eat for Jews even if slaughtered ritually. Rashi explains that the word אך at the beginning of the verse teaches that these vessels had to be thoroughly cleaned prior to immersion in a ritual bath so as to remove rust over the areas in which forbidden foods might have penetrated.

V. 22. אך את הזהב וגו׳. Wir haben bereits zu Wajikra 11, 32 bemerkt, dass der Begriff: כלי hier aus V. 20 zu supplieren und dadurch der enge Anschluss dieses Satzes an das dort Ausgesprochene gegeben ist: alles Gewand usw. und alles hölzerne Gerät habt ihr euch nur durch הזיה von טומאה zu entsündigen, metallene Geräte jedoch erfordern außerdem noch (כל דבר אשר וגו׳) הכשר und (אד במי וגו׳) טבילה wie im folgenden Verse zur Anordnung kommt.

כל דבר אשר יבא באש ANYTHING THAT COMES ON THE FIRE, to boil something in it,

EVERY THING THAT MAY COME INTO THE FIRE YE SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. A vessel which touched a human corpse or dead animal does not become purified by fire, since the immersion mentioned in the Torah is always in water. Therefore our Rabbis had to explain⁹⁷Abodah Zarah 75b. that this purification [mentioned here by Scripture] refers to remove from them [the traces of] the forbidden foods which they had absorbed whilst they were in the possession of the non-Jews. This is the true [explanation] without any doubt.

וטהר, it will have become decontaminated from the negative vibes attached to it as residue of idolaters.

אך במי נדה, a reference to the waters containing the ash of the red heifer that would be used to cleanse them from their ritual impurity. It would also be used to purify other items, such as remnants of forbidden foods absorbed by the walls of the captured pots and pans.

תעבירו באש וטהר, “you shall pass through the fire and it will become ritually pure.” Nachmanides writes that no vessel that had been in direct contact with a dead body, or an animal’s carcass, would become purified simply by passing through fire, as the Torah recognizes only immersion in a ritual bath as the way in which such vessels can become purified. As a result, we must understand what is written here concerning making the vessel red hot, i.e. “passing through fire” as referring only to purification from the type of impurity caused by the pores of the vessels in question having absorbed some of the forbidden food that had been cooked or fried in it.

כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש, “any item which is normally used on (in) the fire you shall make pass through the fire.” The purification process must match the manner in which it is normally used. Iron spits used for roasting meat for instance, would have to be made red hot in fire in order to be ritually purified.

In which to cook something. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Just because the artisan made a utensil in fire, would the Torah require one to pass it through fire again? Thus, he explains “in which to cook” and this is an abbreviated verse, for it should have said, “Anything placed on a fire in which to cook [forbidden food].”

V. 23. כל דבר וגו׳, alles, was durch Feuer hineingekommen ist, habt ihr durch Feuer fortzuschaffen, und alles, das nicht durch Feuer hineingekommen ist, habt ihr durch Wasser fortzuschaffen. תעבירי wie העביר חטאתך (Sam. 1I. 12, 13), העבר חרפתי (Ps. 119, 39). ויעבר הקדשים מן הארץ (Kön. I. 15, 12). Es ist damit das Gesetz gegeben, dass metallene Speisegeräte, in welche איסור-Stoffe eingedrungen sind, vor dem Gebrauch von diesen איסור-Stoffen befreit werden müssen, und zwar was unmittelbar durch Feuer, ohne flüssiges Medium eingedrungen ist, muss durch Glühen (ליבון) im Feuer, was nicht unmittelbar durch Feuer eingedrungen ist, durch kochendes Wasser (הגעלה) herausgebracht werden. Dieser Grundsatz, dass ein eingedrungener Stoff durch dasselbe Medium hinausgebracht wird, durch welches er eingedrungen war, wird unter den Kanon: כבולעו כך פולטו gefasst (siehe Aboda Sara 55b f.). Diese gesetzliche Tatsache: גיעולי נכרים — die aus nichtjüdischen Speisegeräten wieder herauskommenden Issurstoffe, געל: von sich auswerfen (Job 21, 10 und Wajikra 26, 11) — dass also selbst in Gefäße eingedrungene Issurstoffe oßur bleiben, obgleich sie doch jedenfalls selbst für den Geschmacksinn bereits in geschmackwidriger Weise abgeschwächt sind, אי אפשר לקדרה בת יומא דלא פגמה פורתא (Aboda Sara 67b, תוספו׳ daselbst) setzt die bereits auch anderweitig feststehende Tatsache voraus (siehe Kap. 5, 3), dass טעם בעיקר, dass ein für alle anderen Sinne verschwundener und nur noch dem Geschmacksinne erkennbarer Issur noch oßur bleibe.

כל דבר אשר יבא באש, “any vessel that can withstand fire, etc.;” it seems strange that the Israelites had not yet been commanded concerning the need to ritually cleanse vessels that were part of a war’s booty already after they had conquered the land of Sichon and Og, lands which they had taken physical possession of, and which was considered as part of the Holy Land, its soil having been promised to the descendants of Avraham in chapter 15 of Genesis? Perhaps the reason is that those campaigns were fought in open fields, and the soldiers at the time of killing their adversaries did not need to enter the homes of their victims and come into physical contact with all their victims’ personal belongings. Now they had to be taught that such belongings of idolaters had to be treated as out of bounds until their idolatrous character had been removed from them.

,וטהר, אך במי נדה יתחטא. “it will become pure, but must still be purified further with the water of sprinkling, called: mey niddah. Rabba bar Avuhi in the Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah folio 75, states that the language of the Torah does not only refer to used utensils, if they had not been used for 12 months, but even for new vessels not produced by Jews if these are meant to be used in the consumption of food or preparation of food. The manner of purifying same is less demanding than the purification of human beings who had been in contact with dead bodies or body parts. When Rabbi Yirmiyah heard of the statement of Rabbi Rabbah, he added that his rule applies only to vessels that have been acquired (purchased or looted) and had been handled by Israelites. If they had only been borrowed temporarily they do not require such purification. Vessels that are made of earthenware cannot be purified unless first broken up when they can be reconstituted by having the shards put in a kiln after treatment by the artisan. Mar bar rav Ashi, is on record as telling people that his father was in the habit of using vessels made from silver that he had received from gentiles as security of loans extended to them. He drank from these vessels (after immersing them in a ritual bath only without submitting them to further purification first). His son was not sure if he did so because he considered them as on loan to him. Or, these vessels were not used to contain matters which had been heated first, such as soup, etc, in which case they would have required a higher degree of purification. (boiling water being poured over them, or if they were small enough, immersing them in boiling water. According to Rashi, Mar bar Rav Ashi’s father was convinced that the borrower who had left this silver vessel with him as security would never demand it back and repay the loan, so that he considered it as his, else he would not have been allowed it as it was given to him for safekeeping. In effect, he had bought it and his payment had been the money he “loaned” to the previous owner.

תעבירו באש YE SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE — according to the manner in which it is used so is the manner in which it is cleansed from what has been absorbed: that vessel the use of which is by means of hot water he shall cleanse with hot water, and that which is used for roasted meat, as for instance, a spit and a grill, he shall make it white hot in the flame (Avodah Zarah 75b).

AND ALL THAT COMETH NOT INTO THE FIRE — “anything which is not [normally] used on fire, such as cups, flasks, and pitchers which are used [to contain] cold substances, and [therefore] have not absorbed [any of the traces of forbidden foods] ye shall pass through the water, meaning that it is sufficient to immerse them.” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for the term ta’aviru (ye shall pass through) does not refer to immersion; for [had this been the case], it would have said “tavi’u (ye shall put it) into water,” which is the expression used in connection with immersion, just as it says, it ‘yuva’ (must be put into) water, and it shall be unclean until the even, and then it shall be clean.⁹⁸Leviticus 11:32. Furthermore, even those vessels, which are only used for cold things [of forbidden foods] need purification from [the traces of] their forbidden foods in addition to this immersion [which Rashi mentioned], and how can it be that Scripture [here] does not mention the [method] of purification [for such vessels] as it did with reference to those vessels that come into the fire? And when the Sages deduced [the necessity for] this immersion they did not mention that the source for it was this [part of the] verse [quoted here by Rashi], but interpreted it⁹⁷Abodah Zarah 75b. [on the basis of that part of the verse which says]: “Nevertheless it shall be purified with the waters of ‘niddah’⁹⁹Here in Verse 23. — waters which are fit for a niddah (a menstruant woman) to immerse herself in.”
But the meaning of ye shall pass through the water is that you should wash them and rub them thoroughly in water until you remove the deposit of forbidden foods which has formed on the vessels by being used for such foods, and this [process] constitutes their purification from the forbidden foods. Scripture is thus saying that [in order to purify a vessel from the forbidden food which it has absorbed] you must put into fire those [vessels] which are used on the fire, in exactly the same way that they were used for [cooking] the forbidden foods. Hence if it was used on the flame itself — such as [a vessel of] iron or copper, and also silver or gold — he must make it white-hot in a flame, and if it was used to contain hot substances, such as [a vessel made of] tin or lead, he cleanses it with boiling-hot water; and if it was not used on fire [or for hot substances] but only for cold foodstuffs, he scours it with water until it is properly cleansed, and then it becomes pure. And similarly the Sages said:⁹⁷Abodah Zarah 75b. “He scours them, and immerses them, and they are then pure.” In the language of the Sifre:¹⁰⁰Sifre, Matoth 158. This language shows that the “passing through water” referred to here, means cleansing of the food deposits, and not, as Rashi explained, merely immersion. “Ye shall pass through the fire — such as knives, because they are [used as spits and] burned by the non-Jews. And all that cometh not into the fire, such as cups, ye shall pass through the water in order to remove the deposits of [the food of] the non-Jews.” And Scripture did not need to mention again [at this second part of the verse, i.e., and all that cometh ‘not’ into the fire], the necessity of immersion [in a ritual pool, which is required after cleansing the vessel before it can be used], because He had already mentioned [in the first part of the verse, concerning vessels that are used in the fire, stating]: nevertheless it shall be purified with the waters of ‘niddah’ [meaning, as explained above, “waters which are fit for ‘a menstruant’ woman to immerse herself in”], and [it is self-understood that] after the traces of forbidden foods have been removed from the vessels they are all alike with respect to the law [requiring] immersion [whether they were used in the fire or not].
And I further take into consideration¹⁰¹Literally: “And my heart further thinks” on this matter to say etc. — See Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’achaloth Assuroth 17:5, who is also of the opinion that the requirement of immersion of vessels is an ordinance of the Rabbis. See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deiah Chapter 120, for the application of this law nowadays. that this immersion [of all vessels obtained from non-Jews, after they have been cleansed from the traces and absorption of forbidden foods prepared in them], is a law of the Rabbis, and they quoted the verse merely as a Scriptural support [for the Rabbinic ordinance]. And similarly Onkelos translated [the phrase, the waters of ‘niddah’] as meaning “the purification of ‘sprinkling’ of [the water containing] the ashes of the [Red] Heifer” [which was required in order to purify those who had come into contact with a dead body, and thus it does not refer at all to the requirement of immersion. The Rabbis [according to this explanation] only required immersion of metal vessels, because some of them are used on fire, either as a “first vessel” [used directly on the flame], or as a “second vessel” [i.e., those which are not actually used for cooking but into which a boiling substance has been put or poured], and [some metal vessels are used] for cold foodstuffs. But this matter needs further investigation.
Now He warned them here to remove from the vessels of the Midianites the [traces and absorptions of the] forbidden foods [which they had absorbed when they were in the possession] of the non-Jews, but He did not tell them this [law] at the beginning — in connection with the vessels of [the Amorite peoples ruled by] Sihon and Og which they also took as spoil, as it is said, Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, with the spoil of the cities which we had taken.¹⁰²Deuteronomy 2:35. The reason for this is that Sihon and Og were Amorite kings, and their land was part of Israel’s inheritance, and therefore all spoil taken from them was allowed for the Israelites, including foods [usually] forbidden; for it is written, and houses full of all good things, which thou didst not fill,¹⁰³Ibid., 6:11. and our Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁴Chullin 17a. “kadlei¹⁰⁵The hind part of the head, together with the neck. In our Gemara ibid., the reading is “katlei of swine,” which Rashi interprets as “dried swine.” See also Ramban on Deuteronomy 6:10. of swine was [hereby especially] permitted for them.” But Midian was not part of their [inheritance], and they [the Israelites] did not capture their land from them; it was only to execute vengeance on them [as they were commanded to do as a punishment for causing the Israelites to sin] that they killed them and took their spoil, and therefore the [usual] prohibition of using their vessels [without removing from them the traces and absorptions of the forbidden foods] applied. Similarly, He [only] commanded them [now] about the law of impurity [conveyed by the dead, saying], And abide ye without the camp seven days etc.¹⁰⁶Above, Verse 19. [and did not command them about it in the earlier war against Sihon and Og], because in the war against Sihon and Og all Israel participated, and when the [entire] public is involved, impurity is permitted,¹⁰⁷This principle refers primarily to the Divine Service in the Sanctuary, and the gist of it is that if all the priests and people became defiled, the public offerings may nonetheless be brought in this state of impurity, because “impurity is permitted when the [entire] public is involved.” Ramban’s application of this principle to the problem before us [namely why the people were not commanded in the wars against Sihon and Og that all who had come into contact with the dead must abide without the camp for seven days], has engendered much discussion among later scholars. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 328. [whereas, as explained above in Verse 6, only a select few, and not the whole people, were sent to execute vengeance on Midian.] But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, He warned them [the twelve thousand men who fought against Midian], “And abide ye without the camp seven days¹⁰⁶Above, Verse 19. and purify yourselves,” in order that they should not defile [the rest of] the people, but there [in the case of the wars against Sihon and Og] they were all equally impure [since they all went to fight; hence there was no point commanding them to abide without the camp, since they all required purification anyhow].

אך במי נדה יתחטא, even making it red hot does not automatically remove its impurity, even if it looks as if new. It requires the waters and ash of the red heifer, i.e. מי נדה

וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים, “and everything that during its normal use would not directly be exposed to fire, you shall pass through water.” Rashi writes that this refers to immersion in a ritual bath. The reason that this is sufficient is that the forbidden particles of food that concern us had not been absorbed at all by the walls of the vessel in question. Nachmanides questions this point, as in his opinion the term מעביר, “making something pass through,” is not associated with a ritual bath at all. When the Torah speaks about a ritual bath, the term used is ובא במים וטהר, “when it is immersed in water it will be purified.” Furthermore, even vessels that are used only cold require to be purified from their contamination by something in addition to a ritual bath. Besides, the requirement of immersing oneself in a ritual bath, is derived by our sages from a different verse, אך במי נדה יתחטא, “however, it must be purified with the water of sprinkling.” We must therefore understand the words תעבירו במים to mean that the vessels under discussion must be thoroughly cleaned in water, rubbed, scrubbed, etc., to remove residual forbidden particles. This is the appropriate process of cleansing, parallel to making vessels used on the fire red-hot, so that the residual forbidden particles are destroyed. This is parallel to the manner in which we clean different categories of utensils before Passover to ensure that no vestige of chametz still is attached to them. Those that are normally used on the fire have to undergo a cleansing process at least equal to their normal usage, whereas those that are not used on the fire have to undergo brief immersion in boiling water or if they are too big must have boiling water poured over them. Once the vessels that had served idolaters have undergone the preparatory steps described, they are all equal in that they still require immersion in a ritual bath.

אך במי נדה יתחטא, “but also it has to be purified by the water of the sprinkling.” In this instance all these captured items, regardless of the manner of their use had to undergo this procedure of being sprinkled with water and ash from the red cow as the Torah writes in Numbers 19,13 that if this water and ash had not been sprinkled on such person or item they remain impure. From the combination of these verses we derive the requirement that even new utensils, unless manufactured by Jews, have to undergo ritual immersion before being fit to use as food or in connection with food (Avodah Zarah 75). The extra word וטהר in our verse is the allusion to this requirement.

To cleanse it from the contamination of the dead. Thus the word נדה ["sprinkling"] is in the sense of וידו אבן בי ["threw a stone at me"] (Eichah 3:53). However, according to the extrapolative interpretation [מי נדה] is in the sense of נדת דותה ["niddah flow"] (Vayikra 12:2), meaning water suitable for the immersion of the niddah. And because the word יתחטא ["be purified"] is only appropriate for החטוי ["purification"], Rashi termed the first explanation “the plain interpretation.” Furthermore, because “water suitable for the immersion of the niddah” refers to forty se'ah, and this is suitable for any impurity, it should have said במי טמא יתחטא [lit. "be purified with water [suitable for immersion of] the impure"]. Therefore, Rashi says, “The Rabbis extrapolate here…” [rather than considering its plain interpretation].

אך במי נדה יתחטא kann nach der ganzen Konstruktion dieser Sätze nicht die היזה von טמאת מת bedeuten. Wäre dies, es würde sicher nach וכל אשר לא וגו׳ stehen, da alle Geräte, auch diejenigen, die gar nicht in Feuer kommen, z. B. hölzerne Geräte, doch, wie ja bereits V. 20 ausgesprochen, הזיה fordern. Offenbar ordnet אך במי נדה וגו׳ etwas an, was nur für metallene Speisegeräte zur Anwendung kommen soll. כל דבר usw. V. 23 ist Zusammenfassung der V. 22 aufgerechneten Metallstoffe; von ihnen wird ein Zwiefaches ausgesagt: ist von ihnen vorauszusetzen, dass sie unmittelbar in Feuer gebraucht worden, so ist der eingedrungene Issurstoff auch durch Feuer wieder hinauszuschaffen, und ferner sollen sie, diese metallenen Speisegeräte, vor dem Gebrauch auch וכל אשר לא יבא באש .במי נדה יתחטא, Nichtmetallgeräte, die nicht in Feuer kommen, sind von den in sie eingedrungenen Issurstoffen nur durch Wasser frei zu machen und bedürfen außerdem nicht des für Metallgeräte vorgeschriebenen חטוי במי נדה. Die Halacha lehrt (Aboda Sara 75b), dass unter diesem חטוי eine besondere טבילה und zwar במקוה ארבעים סאה (siehe Wajikra 11, 36) und במים שהנדה genügt רביעית schon ein טבילת כלים מטומאתן zu verstehen sei, während für טובלת בהן (siehe תוספו׳ daselbst). מי נדה wäre dann hier allgemeine Bezeichnung der מקוה für durch טומאה zum "Sichfernhalten" verpflichtete Menschen. So Secharja 13, 1. מקור וגו׳ לחטאת ולנדה wo durch חטאת die הזיה bei טומאת מת und durch נדה die allgemeine טבילה bezeichnet wird. Dadurch, dass hier für metallene Speisegeräte eine טבילה wie für Menschen angeordnet ist, erklärt sich dann auch der sonst so auffallende Ausdruck יתחטא wo das zu entsündigende Gerät nicht Objekt, sondern Subjekt ist. Es wird also das כלי als Person als "sich entsündigender" Mensch ausgedrückt, die טבילת כלי damit als טבילת אדם begriffen, es ist die jüdische Menschenpersönlichkeit, die in dieser טבילת כלי מדין ihre טבילה zu erblicken hat, daher יתחטא und daher ארבעים סאה (siehe auch Wajikra 11, 32).

אך מי נדה יתחטא NEVERTHELESS IT SHALL BE PURIFIED WITH THE WATERS OF SPRINKLING — According to its plain sense this purification is to cleanse it from the uncleanness caused by a corpse. He said to them: the vessels require גיעול (the ceremony by which whatever has been absorbed will be given up) to cleanse them from the effect of having contained forbidden food, and also purification to cleanse them from the uncleanness caused by a corpse. But our Rabbis derived from here the law that in order to make them fit for use (to cleanse them entirely) from being forbidden, it (Scripture) made immersion in a ritual bath a requirement for metal vessels, and they explained the words מי נדה which are written here as denoting “waters that are proper for a נדה to immerse herself in”. And how much is that? Forty Seahs (Avodah Zarah 75b).

Immerse them and it is sufficient. [One might ask:] Why did the Torah refer to immersion using the term of “passing” instead of “bringing” as in “it shall be brought into water and remain contaminated until evening” (Vayikra 11:32)? The answer is that since it said above, “You must pass through fire,” which does not mean that it was passed through fire, rather it was brought on the fire, the same is true for “passing” here, that it too is in the sense of being brought, and refers to immersion. Now that immersion is required, one must remove any substance that adhered to the utensil, so that there will not be any interposition during immersion as it is written, “Only the gold…” (v. 22).

Diese für metallene Speisegeräte bei ihrem Übergang aus nichtjüdischem in jüdischen Besitz angeordnete טבילה, selbst wenn dieselben von jeder טומאה und jedem איסור frei sind, kann nur der קדושה, der sittlichen Heiligung angehören, in deren Bereich dem Juden auch sein sinnlicher Speisegenuss gehoben sein soll. Die Beschränkung auf "metallene Speisegeräte" dürfte aber dem durch diese טבילה zum Bewusstsein zu bringenden Gedanken noch einen besonderen Gehalt erteilen. Ein metallenes Gerät ist der sprechendste Ausdruck der geistigen Herrschaft des Menschen über die Erde und ihre Stoffe. Nicht nur seine Form, schon sein Stoff verkündet sie. Speise ist aber gerade diejenige Tätigkeit, die zunächst ganz im Dienste der physisch-sinnlichen Natur des Menschen steht, und ein metallenes Gerät zum Speisezweck vergegenwärtigt an sich die geistigste Seite des Menschenwesens im Dienste seiner sinnlichen Natur. Unter dem Regime des göttlichen Gesetzes ist aber auch das ganze sinnliche Leben des Menschen dem Kreise physischer Unfreiheit enthoben und dem Bereiche sittlich freier Gott dienender Tätigkeit überwiesen, und begreift sichs, wie uns scheint, diesem nach sehr wohl, warum das Gesetz insbesondere für den Eintritt metallener Speisegeräte die Entsündigungsweihe durch טבילה statuiert, und warum eben diese טבילה auch התחטא "Sichentsündigen" heißt; soll doch eben auch sie das Bewusstsein sittlicher Freiheit, das ist ja der Fähigkeit, sich der Sünde zu enthalten, beleben und stärken. So auch ירושלמי Aboda Sara V. 15. לפי שיצאו מטומאת הנכרי ונכנסו לקדושת ישראל. Gläserne Gefäße haben ihrem ebenfalls durch künstliche Feuerbeherrschung geschaffenen und wie Metalle schmelzbaren Stoffe nach, Ähnlichkeit mit Metallen und fordern daher gläserne und glasierte Speisegeräte טבילה מדרבנן (Aboda Sara daselbst).